Search results

This paper aims to contend that when tackling financial crimes such as money laundering and terrorist financing, international regulators are seeking to hold offshore jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands to higher standards and that this detracts from the pursuit of detecting and prosecuting money launders.

This paper will deal with the following perceived issues: firstly, to offshore jurisdictions as a concept; secondly, to outline the efforts made by the Cayman Islands to combat money laundering and to rate these changes against Financial Action Task Forces’ (FATAF’s) technical criteria; thirdly, to demonstrate that the Cayman Islands is among some of the world’s top jurisdictions for compliance with FATAF’s standards; and finally, to examine whether greylisting was necessary and to comment upon whether efforts by international regulators to hold offshore jurisdictions to higher standards detracts from the actual prosecution of money laundering within the jurisdiction.

Greylisting the Cayman Islands in these authors’ view was something that should have never happened; the Cayman Islands is being held to standards far beyond what is expected in an onshore jurisdiction. There is a need for harmonisation in respect of international anti money laundering rules and regulations to shift the tone to prosecution and investigation of offences rather than on rating jurisdictions technical compliance with procedural rules where states have a workable anti-money laundering (AML) regime.

The implications of this research are to show that offshore jurisdictions are being held by FATAF and other international regulators to higher AML standards than their onshore counterparties.

The author hopes that this paper will begin the debate as to whether FATAF needs to give reasons as to why offshore jurisdictions are held to higher standards and whether it needs to begin to contemplate higher onshore standards.

This is an original piece of research evaluating the effect of FATAF's reporting on offshore jurisdictions with a case study involving primary and secondary data in relation to the Cayman Islands.

To introduce, compare and contrast the new regulatory regimes for closed-ended funds recently enacted in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

Explores similarities and differences between the two regimes, as well as practical implications for fund managers, with respect to (1) the regulatory frameworks governing the funds; (2) the definitions of the types of funds covered by the regulations; (3) registration requirements and associated timing; (4) operating requirements, including responsibilities for portfolio management, valuation and safekeeping of fund property; the number of directors; audits; valuation procedures; safekeeping of fund assets; cash monitoring; identification of securities; offering documents, term sheets and marketing materials; and representation in the respective jurisdictions; and (5) additional requirements, including numbers and qualifications of investors.

The new legislation has been enacted in order to respond to certain European Union and other international recommendations and has the effect of aligning the regulatory regimes applicable to such funds structured in Cayman and BVI to the regulatory regimes applicable to such funds in other jurisdictions.

Expert guidance from lawyers with extensive experience in fund management, fund structuring and Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands laws and regulations.

This article critically analyses the extent to which selected Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) transportation projects in the Caribbean subregion embrace good practices and how they benefit the public sector.

The article begins with the general rationale of PPPs, leading to a discussion on the specific challenges of the Caribbean subregion and an assessment of certain critical projects. The sample cases include the L F Wade International Airport in Bermuda, the cruise berthing and cargo port redevelopment project in the Cayman Islands, and the Sanger International Airport in Jamaica. There are five aspects to the critical assessment: (a) an evaluation of the type of PPP arrangement used; (b) the legal/policy framework; (c) financial implications; (d) accountability; and (e) miscellaneous data. Desk-based research is conducted as supported by both international and local sources to convey a uniquely local perspective in this under-researched area of scholarship.

PPP frameworks in the Caribbean are improving quickly but remain a work in progress. Jamaica leads the region. Bermuda trails behind. Problems of legal compliance with frameworks and limited market engagement persist, leading to risk management problems.

This article fills a literature gap on critical analysis of individual Caribbean PPP transportation projects. Previous reports, mostly by international organisations, cover regional or sectorial trends. Other sources take a descriptive but not critical approach.

Supporting the international fight against drug trafficking and serious crime is hard to contest; it is like being in favour of family values. Likewise, therefore, the fight against money laundering, ie burying or disguising the financial proceeds of those activities, including helping someone else to do so. The real and potential long‐term damage to societies, honest government, the rule of law and sound economies is now well recognised. But, on closer inspection, the route mapped out by the international community to achieve the laudable goal of putting serious criminals (and those who assist them) out of business by attacking the financial jugular causes a number of political, economic and legal tensions.

‘Q. Why the Caymans? You could have gone anywhere. You had a lot of money. You could have gone to Paris, the Bahamas?

The principle of offshore financial confidentiality is a controversial issue in offshore law. On the one hand, offshore jurisdictions view confidentiality in financial matters as an essential ingredient in the offshore industry which deserves to be protected. On the other, onshore states are increasingly hostile to confidentiality and have been willing to take drastic measures to undermine it.

On 22nd June, 2000, after a good deal of speculation, the much anticipated list of non‐cooperative countries was made public by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). They had assessed 31 countries before deciding on the final 15, deemed non‐cooperative as their laws and practices were construed as providing an impediment to the fight against money laundering. They were the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Dominica, Israel, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Panama, Philippines, Russia, St Kitts & Nevis and St Vincent & Grenadines. Unfortunately for the Dominican Republic, a number of news sources from around the world substituted them for Dominica, assuming the two names referred to the same country.

The Caribbean has been the focus of a lot of attention over the last year with respect to money laundering. This paper will firstly examine the main international initiatives affecting money laundering in the Caribbean countries. In the second part of the paper there will be a review of the regional efforts that have been taken by Caribbean countries to address the problem of money laundering.