Directors accountability bites in Guernsey - it goes to show that not all directors are equal for failure
Five years after Standard Chartered Trust (Guernsey) Limited (SCTG) ceased business (announced in July 2016), a single director is punished for AML failings.
I question whether it can be correct; no other director (as at posting these thoughts) has been punished.
Today's fine follows the 4th June 2020 announcement where the GFSC imposed a ﬁnancial penalty of £140,000 under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission Law on the Licensee; https://www.comsuregroup.com/news/aml-fails-standard-chartered-trust-guernsey-limited-fined-140-000/
On reading the public statements, it seems to me that there was something more systemic than a single (scapegoat [sorry, but we need to be told more - to make this feeling go away]) director?
Consider what the GFSC said:
- Despite the numerous red flags already raised ... the Licensee then engaged in an unbalanced process to expedite the transfers to SCTS,'
- [It] was 'extremely concerned' the firm had not adequately considered the risk of clients potentially avoiding tax in Indonesia, and therefore, the funds it controlled represented the proceeds of crime
- It also showed a 'serious lack of prudence and professional skill' when considering employee concerns, it added.
Also, look at what MAS said
- The transfers occurred shortly before Guernsey implemented the Common Reporting Standards (CRS) for the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters. "The timing of the transfers raised questions of whether the clients were attempting to avoid their CRS reporting obligations," s
A StanChart spokesman said:
- "We regret that we fell short of our own standards in adequately mitigating the risks involving some clients who might have attempted to avoid reporting obligations under the Common Reporting Standard by transferring their trusteeships between December 2015 and January 2016.
Meet the team of industry experts behind ComsureFind out more
Keep up to date with the very latest news from ComsureFind out more
View our latest imagery from our news and workFind out more
Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us todayGet In Touch
As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email email@example.com.