JFSC details how civil financial penalties will be explained in public statements

The Jersey Financial Services Commission has revised its guidance note Our approach to enforcement. The document was first issued on 16 April 2024 and was last revised on 3 September 2026.

The official page is here:
https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/our-approach-to-enforcement/

A JFSC LinkedIn round-up in mid-September 2026 described the change in plain terms: the Commission has “updated our guidance to explain what we will include in public statements when we impose a civil financial penalty on a firm.” That is the part of the September 2026 revision that can be identified with reasonable confidence from public sources. I have not independently compared a marked-up before-and-after PDF of the whole note, so I do not claim that every paragraph below is new. Most of the note still reads as the 2024 framework, with added transparency language on how firm penalties will be described.

What the guidance is, and what it is not

This is not a new statute and it does not invent new sanctions. It is a statement of how the JFSC says it will use existing powers against firms and individuals subject to regulatory requirements.

The Commission says enforcement is anchored in the guiding principles in the Financial Services Commission (Jersey) Law 1998, in particular:

• Reducing the risk of public financial loss from dishonesty, incompetence, malpractice or financial unsoundness;

• Protecting and enhancing Jersey’s reputation and integrity in commercial and financial matters;

• Countering financial crime in Jersey and elsewhere.

Enforcement objectives are listed as deterrence through meaningful consequences; controlling or removing firms or individuals that pose an unacceptable risk; raising awareness and resetting behaviour; and preventing financial gain from non-compliance.

That is the published policy. Whether those objectives are met in practice depends on case outcomes, not on the wording of a guidance note.

Supervision first, Enforcement when the risk looks serious

The note explicitly states that suspected breaches are not automatically Enforcement cases.

The primary focus is remedial action. Many breaches, it says, can be addressed through a remediation plan agreed with the firm’s supervisor. Referral to Enforcement is framed as the response where there appears to have been serious misconduct, and where the impact on the guiding principles justifies an investigation.

Opening an investigation is not a finding of misconduct. The stated purpose is to understand the facts and decide whether action is needed. The Commission says it takes a “strategic” approach: identify the heart of the case quickly, focus on key evidence, and close the investigation promptly if it is no longer needed.

If individuals appear to have been a significant factor in a firm’s suspected serious misconduct, they will usually be investigated at the same time as the firm. A formal scope note is generally provided when an investigation opens, unless disclosure would prejudice the investigation.

Powers cited include compelling the production of documents and information; compelling individuals to attend and answer questions; requiring a firm, at its own cost, to appoint a professional to produce a report; and directing the preservation of records. The note says these powers are used frequently.

Sanctions, settlements and appeals

Where a sanction is in prospect, the matter is said to follow the published decision-making process, unless settlement discussions are under way.

https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/decision-making-process/

Available sanctions listed in the note include:

• A public statement of censure;

• A civil financial penalty on a firm or an individual;

• Restricting or preventing an individual from working in a supervised sector;

• Revoking a firm’s licence.

Sanctions are described as needing to be fair and proportionate, taking account of seriousness, duration, regulatory track record, and aggravating or mitigating factors such as co-operation and candour.

A regulatory settlement is voluntary. The JFSC says it will only enter settlement discussions where the firm or individual is prepared to acknowledge misconduct, and where settlement would be consistent with the guiding principles and enforcement objectives.

There is a statutory right of appeal to the Royal Court of Jersey if the person considers the decision unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

The September 2026 change: how firm penalties will be explained

This is the part that matches the JFSC’s own description of the latest revision.

The note already said that when a civil financial penalty is imposed, a restriction is placed on an individual, or a licence is revoked, a public statement will also be issued setting out the reasons. The 3 September 2026 language goes further for firm penalties.

According to the revised text:

• The public statement accompanying a civil financial penalty on a firm will give a concise explanation of how the final penalty was reached;

• Steps 1–8 of the published methodology take account of average annual turnover, seriousness and other relevant matters, producing an intermediate figure;

• That figure is checked against the statutory maximum at Step 9;

• Later adjustments and the effect of settlement are then considered;

• The public statement will disclose the Steps 1–8 intermediate figure and explain whether it was reduced at Step 9;

• Where relevant, it will also explain later adjustments or settlement;

• It will then state the final penalty;

• The level of detail will depend on the circumstances of the case.

That is a transparency change, not a change to the legal maximum or to the methodology itself. The methodology for registered persons remains a separate document, last revised on 19 June 2026:

https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/civil-financial-penalties-on-registered-persons

Readers should not confuse the two. The enforcement approach note now says more about what the public statement will disclose. The methodology note is still the document that explains how the figure is calculated.

Context that matters, and limits of the update

In 2026 the penalty framework itself has been in motion.

On 12 March 2026, the Financial Services Commission (Financial Penalties) (Jersey) Amendment Order 2026 came into force. The JFSC later consulted on consequential amendments to the registered-persons methodology, including the reintroduction of monetary caps for Bands 1, 2 and 2A, with Band 3 remaining uncapped.

Consultation page:
https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/consultations/consultation-on-amendments-to-the-jfsc-s-civil-financial-penalty-methodology-for-registered-persons/

News announcement, 26 March 2026:
https://www.jerseyfsc.org/news-and-events/consultation-launched-on-civil-financial-penalty-methodology/

The September enforcement-note update does not, on the published wording, rewrite those bands. It tells industry and the public that, when a firm penalty is imposed, the Commission intends to show more of the arithmetic path from intermediate figure to final amount.

That is useful. It is also limited. The note still says the level of detail “will depend on the circumstances of the case”. Until several post-September public statements appear, it is not possible to judge how much extra explanation firms and the market will actually get.

Crime referrals, overseas assistance and DPAs

The guidance also covers three related points that are easy to miss.

First, suspected criminal offences identified in the course of JFSC work may be referred to Jersey’s criminal authorities. The Commission points to its separate note on referrals to the police and/or Attorney General.

Second, the JFSC says it will use statutory powers to assist other agencies and regulators, including obtaining information from third parties and onward disclosing it, to the fullest extent permitted by law and where consistent with its guiding principles.

Third, on deferred prosecution agreements: if a firm engages with the Attorney General with a view to a DPA, it still has Code obligations to deal with the JFSC openly and co-operatively. The Commission says it will not take enforcement action solely on the basis of a judgment, statement of facts or DPA. It will only consider action after its own investigation, judged against the same impact-on-guiding-principles test.

Practical reading for firms

The document is consistent on one operational point: most regulatory problems are expected to stay in Supervision if they can be remediated. Enforcement is reserved for serious misconduct and higher impact on the statutory principles.

The new public-statement language on firm penalties is the item worth reading first. If you are a registered person, the documents to keep together are:

1. Enforcement approach (revised 3 September 2026)
   https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/our-approach-to-enforcement/

2. Decision-making process
   https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/decision-making-process/

3. Civil financial penalties methodology for registered persons (revised 19 June 2026)
   https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/civil-financial-penalties-on-registered-persons

4. March 2026 consultation on methodology amendments
   https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/consultations/consultation-on-amendments-to-the-jfsc-s-civil-financial-penalty-methodology-for-registered-persons/

• An earlier PDF version of the enforcement note (updated 13 February 2025) is still hosted here:
  https://www.jerseyfsc.org/media/8105/our-approach-to-enforcement.pdf
  Treat that file as historic. The live webpage is the version dated last revised 3 September 2026.

Sources

• JFSC, Our approach to enforcement: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/our-approach-to-enforcement/

• JFSC, historic PDF of the same note (updated 13 February 2025): https://www.jerseyfsc.org/media/8105/our-approach-to-enforcement.pdf

• JFSC, Decision-making process: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/decision-making-process/

• JFSC, Civil financial penalties on Registered Persons: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/civil-financial-penalties-on-registered-persons

• JFSC consultation on CFP methodology amendments: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/consultations/consultation-on-amendments-to-the-jfsc-s-civil-financial-penalty-methodology-for-registered-persons/

• JFSC news, 26 March 2026: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/news-and-events/consultation-launched-on-civil-financial-penalty-methodology/

• JFSC news, 25 November 2025 (interim approach to the CFP regime): https://www.jerseyfsc.org/news-and-events/civil-financial-penalties-regime-consultation-and-interim-approach

• Financial Services Commission (Jersey) Law 1998 (legislation.gov.je / Jersey Law): search via https://www.jerseylaw.je/

• JFSC LinkedIn company page (mid-September 2026 weekly round-up describing the public-statement update): https://uk.linkedin.com/company/jersey-financial-services-commission