Does your Jersey SAR training differentiate between Jersey and UK SAR trigger requirements?. If Not, Reevaluate Your Approach

Introduction

• I spend a lot of time either delivering or analysing training for regulated businesses, and one of the key observations I've made in Jersey is that:
• SAR reporting training does not always follow Jersey-specific principles and legal requirements, but mirrors UK standards.
• While both jurisdictions aim to combat financial crime under international frameworks like FATF,
• Jersey's regime under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 emphasises a risk-based, explicitly itemised approach that can cast a wider net.
• If your training doesn't highlight these nuances (the wider net), it's time to re-evaluate and tailor it to Jersey's context to ensure compliance and avoid penalties or worse!!!.

Comsure training

• At Comsure training events, I explain this nuance in all my Jersey AML/CTF/CPF training sessions.  For example, here's a key slide from a recent Comsure Lunch and Learn event.

If you haven't attended a Comsure training event or participated in our Lunch and Learn programme, I'll explain the key differences below.

What Jersey Training Must Focus On:

JERSEY VS UK

• Jersey's reporting triggers under Article 34D are more explicitly itemised than in the UK (including direct suspicion about a property's criminal origins or use), potentially capturing a broader range of property-focused suspicions without needing to tie them strictly to active "laundering."
• In contrast, the UK's focus under Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is solely on suspicion of "money laundering" as an act. However, this implicitly covers dealings with criminal property.

JERSEY

• In Jersey, if you work in a financial services business (as defined in Schedule 2 of the POCL, covering activities like banking, lending, investment services, trust and company administration, real estate, and more), and you come across information during your job that:
• Makes you know, suspect, or have good reason to think that someone else is engaged in facilitating or dealing with proceeds of criminal conduct (as shown earlier and referred to as money laundering), or
• That some “Property” (money/assets)
• Are from crime (i.e., proceeds of criminal conduct) or
• Are being used for crime (i.e., involved in ongoing or intended criminal activity),
• Then reporting rules apply.
• The reporting rules (law) activate when both of the following conditions are met:
• You gained that knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds from your work in the financial services business, and
• It relates to potential criminal activity involving "Property" (money/assets)
• In such cases, you must disclose the details (e.g., the basis of your suspicion and any relevant identities or property info) as soon as practicable and in good faith to
• Your firm's nominated officer (e.g., Money Laundering Reporting Officer, or MLRO) or
• Directly to the Jersey Financial Crimes Unit (the FIU).
• Failure to do so can result in up to 5 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both.

When in doubt:

• Always consult your compliance team if unsure, better to report cautiously than risk non-compliance.

Defences include:

• Reasonable excuses, legal privilege, or
• If your employer failed to provide relevant training that could have helped you recognise the issue.

The situations that could trigger a need to report

• In the context of that Jersey law on reporting suspicions in financial services (Article 34D of the Proceeds of Crime Law), both points describe situations that could trigger a need to report to your company's nominated officer (MLRO) or the Financial Intelligence Unit.
• Makes you know, suspect, or have good reason to think that someone else is engaged in facilitating or dealing with proceeds of criminal conduct (commonly known as money laundering), or
• That some “Property” (money/assets)
• Is from crime (i.e., proceeds of criminal conduct) or
• Are being used for crime (i.e., involved in ongoing or intended criminal activity),
• But they're not the same.
• There's some overlap,
• But they focus on different angles of potential criminal activity.

I'll break it down:

1. POINT 1 = Suspecting Someone Else Is Engaged in Facilitating or Dealing with Proceeds of Criminal Conduct (Commonly Known as Money Laundering)

• This is about spotting signs that a person (like a client, colleague, or third party) is actively engaged in the process of concealing, disguising, or moving the proceeds of criminal conduct  (criminal property)
• It typically involves:
• Taking property derived from crimes (e.g., drug trafficking, fraud, or corruption) and
• Making it appear to come from lawful sources through transactions, such as property purchases, fund transfers, or the use of complex corporate structures.
• Example:
• You notice a client is:
• Structuring transactions through multiple accounts in a way that seems designed to obscure the illicit origins, or
• Using your services to convert criminally derived funds into assets that appear legitimate.
• Key Focus:
• It's person-centred, it's about the person's actions in the process itself.
• You don't necessarily need to know the original crime; just the suspicion of facilitating or dealing with proceeds is enough.

2. POINT 2 = Suspecting “Property” (money/assets) is from Crime or Being Used for Crime

• This is broader and property-centred. It's about the "Property" (money/assets) themselves being linked to criminal conduct:
• "From crime" means:
• They could be the direct proceeds (profits, gains, or benefits) of illegal activity, such as embezzled funds, assets acquired through bribery, or property obtained via scams.
• "Being used for crime" means:
• The property is involved in ongoing or future criminal acts, like financing terrorism, acquiring illegal goods, or supporting a fraudulent operation.
• Example:
• A client's deposit appears to originate from a source tied to corruption (proceeds of criminal conduct), or
• A client is transferring untainted funds to facilitate something clearly unlawful (used for crime).
• Key Focus:
• It's about the origin or intended use of the “Property” (money/assets), not necessarily that someone is facilitating them right now.
• This could apply even if no active process is happening yet, e.g., the assets are just sitting there, but you suspect they're derived from or intended for criminal purposes.

Main Differences

• Scope:
• Point 1 is specifically about the act of facilitating or dealing with proceeds of criminal conduct (the process of legitimising them).
• Point 2 is about the criminal connection to the property itself, regardless of whether facilitation is involved, it could be "upstream" (source of the crime) or "downstream" (use in future crimes).
• Overlap:
• Often, these go hand-in-hand. For instance,
• If money is proceeds of criminal conduct (point 2), someone might be facilitating it (point 1).
• But the law lists them separately to cover more ground; you might suspect one without the other.
• Why It Matters for Reporting:
• In practice, if either (or both) applies based on info from your work, you have to report it internally or to authorities to avoid breaking the law yourself.
• The goal is to catch and stop financial crime early.
• Always err on the side of reporting if you're unsure your firm should have training or a compliance team to guide you.

Conclusion

• If this comes up in real life, check your company's policy or speak to your Money Laundering Reporting Officer; they're there to help without judging.
• For more tailored training, reach out to Comsure to join our next Lunch and Learn or programme!
• Call Comsure to learn more: