Comments on: Asian trip is already beginning to show results says delegation

By: TL

TL — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:24:51 +0000

Arnald – your questions reveal how you have little understanding of how CDD works and hw rigorous our requirements are.

Your question of ‘where’ the CDD is held is also irrelevant because the service provider in Guernsey must be satisfied. We cannot simply take the word of a bank in China that they hold the information, for example.

I think that if you saw the requirements in practice and how rigorously they are implemented, you would be pleasantly surprised.

Report abuse

By: David

David — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:44:11 +0000

Arnald
In place here of course. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Report abuse

By: Arnald

Arnald — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:03:20 +0000

David
In place where, though?

Report abuse

By: David

David — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:30:43 +0000

Arnald
That’s an academic question because we wouldn’t act for someone unless the CDD is already in place.

Report abuse

By: Arnald

Arnald — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:24:57 +0000

Do you file an STR every time you accept business from an intermediary who has not forwarded CDD proof?

You should.

Report abuse

By: David

David — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:10:56 +0000

Stephen John
No it doesn’t destroy my hypothesis because my hypothesis was clearly qualified by the comment that it would be naive to think that every STR had been filed !
Your stance demands perfection. Businesses aiming for perfection will hit a very high target but where human beings are concerned perfection is not guaranteed. The odd one will be missed. Even regulators will accept the inevitably of that, provided that its not a wilful or Nelsonian non-filing.
But compare the current position with 2003 when the IMF last inspected us. We have improved massively since then. I am convinced, as seemingly is TL, that we are far more compliant than the UK and nearly all onshore and offshore jurisdictions. That’s what is relevant, and we must of course continue to strive for 100% filing of STRs. Foot rightly warns of complacency.

Report abuse

By: Stephen John

Stephen John — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:43:54 +0000

David makes the comment ” Guernsey may well be 100% compliant and may well have filed every STR that it should have done. Now I accept that’s probably naive but nobody can prove otherwise.”

Similarly, you can’t prove it’s a correct assumption.

It is more likely to presume that not every STR that should have been filed was filed.

Even missing one destroys your hypothesis.

Report abuse

By: TL

TL — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:53:23 +0000

As a PS I would have preferred it if Foot had reviewed our CDD as I am sure that we would have been shown to be compliant. We are certainly more rigorous than the UK.

Report abuse

By: TL

TL — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:48:28 +0000

Arnald – if you read the report properly you will see that the statement you quoted does not relate to Guernsey. The Foot report did not consider Guernsey’s CDD as it was reviewd a few years back and has been substially strengthened since then. That statement referred only to those jurisdictions which were reviewed.

Report abuse

By: David

David — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:28:00 +0000

Arnald
Para 7.18 reads:
“Customer due diligence (CDD) must of course be undertaken in order to identify suspicious transactions. Again, there is a need for a number of the jurisdictions within the scope of this Review to improve compliance against the FATF’s main CDD Recommendation (Recommendation 5). None of the jurisdictions has been assessed as better than partially compliant and Bermuda and The Turks and Caicos Islands were last assessed as non-compliant.”

You seem to be assuming that “a number of the jurisdictions” automatically includes Guernsey. On what basis do you make such an assumption ? If that comment applied to all jurisdictions then surely it would have said so.

Where it states that “None of the jurisdictions has been assessed as better than partially compliant…” it is based on the number of STRs as per Chart 7C. That shows that Guernsey made around 750 STRs in 2004, around 550 in 2006 and around 500 in 2008. But NOBODY knows how many ought to have been made. Guernsey may well be 100% compliant and may well have filed every STR that it should have done. Now I accept that’s probably naive but nobody can prove otherwise. The IMF will no doubt be able to confirm this more accurately in 2010. If there isn’t more than 500 STRs which should have been made in 2008, how on earth would it be possible to file any more than that figure ? Are we supposed to make them up just to boost numbers ?

Report abuse

By: David

David — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:50:30 +0000

Arnald
TL is quite right.
I have a copy of the Foot report in front of me now and I can’t find any reference to where he says he doesn’t think we are well regulated, or that he doesn’t think we know the true meaning of the trades we facilitate, or that our CDD isn’t strong enough.

Please point me to the relevant sections as I must be missing what are obviously some subliminal messages hidden in my copy.

Report abuse

By: Arnald

Arnald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:35:27 +0000

7.18
Is “not better than partially compliant” good enough for you?

Report abuse

By: Matthew Corbin (MC)

Matthew Corbin (MC) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:59:59 +0000

Arnald,

I stressed before legitimate funds. I do believe we have a working and reliable compliance system and standard.

Do you personally know the level of corruption in the Communist Party of China? If so how, and perhaps you can volunteer to be a compliance officer for Guernsey businesses with China clients.

Report abuse

By: TL

TL — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:22:12 +0000

Except Foot didn’t actually say that did he Arnald? As much as you may have liked him to have said what you wanted to here, you cannot attribute statements to him that he did not make.

Report abuse

By: Arnald

Arnald — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:56:39 +0000

Are we well regulated, MC? Do we know the true meaning of the trades we facilitate? Are we sure our CDD is strong enough?

Foot didn’t think so. I don’t think so. So how will we know how clean the money we’re dealing with is, presuming that all introductions will be done through intermediaries?

And do you know the levels of alleged corruption within the local communist party set up?

Report abuse