Cayman Islands: Reporting Obligations & Tipping Off: Has The Pendulum Swung Too Far?

Last Updated: 13 December 2002
Article by Anthony Akiwumi
Reporting Obligations & Tipping Off: Has The Pendulum Swung Too Far?

The reporting obligation underpinning the regulatory rampart raised in the global battle against money laundering and cross border fraud has come under recent scrutiny in the United Kingdom and in Canada. Contrasting approaches and decisions from these jurisdictions, should give practitioners in these Islands plenty of food for thought. In the rush to legislate against what is properly perceived as a destabilising threat to the proper functioning of governments and their economies, long protected and essential democratic principles namely, the necessity of an independent legal profession and of the sanctity of legal professional privilege, appear to have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Perhaps, in the wake of developments, particularly in Canada, the time has come for a reappraisal by the legal profession of the legislative straightjacket imposed by the Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Law (2001 Revision) and the Money Laundering Regulations imposed thereunder.

The fate of the English solicitor named John Duff is a salutary tale of the attendant dangers to legal practitioners in this legislative minefield. The case brings into to stark relief the conflict of interest between one’s duty to one’s client under the orthodox conception of the lawyer client relationship, and the duty foisted upon legal practitioners under proceeds of crime/anti money laundering legislation. Are lawyers, erstwhile independent and fearless defenders of their clients’ interests now no more than toothless poodles subject to the beck, call and sanction of a faceless State?

If it be thought that this question is of purely academic interest to be debated at the various in vogue compliance / anti money laundering seminars, couched in glib exhortations to lawyers to "know the client," then spare a thought for poor old Mr Duff as he serves his six months term of imprisonment at one of Her Majesty’s institutions with the certain prospect of being removed from the Rolls. Consideration of his case should raise the alarm bells for all in the legal profession and should send a shiver down our collective spines. The case was reported in the Legal Section of The Times of 23rd July 2002, which gave the following brief account:

"For failing to report his suspicion in relation to money paid to his firm by a commercial client who was then convicted of drug trafficking, Duff was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court on 1st July 2002, the English equivalent of the Grand Court, to six months' imprisonment. It must be likely that he will in turn also face severe professional sanctions. In essence Duff's involvement arose during the mid- 1990s, when he was paid £70,000 by an established client on account of fees. A little later the client asked for his money back and Duff duly obliged, having deducted a portion for his fees. About a year later this client was arrested in possession of large quantity of cocaine and prosecuted for trafficking. The client pleaded ignorance and instructed Duff to defend him on this basis. Acting for the client enabled access by Duff to the prosecution evidence, from which he ascertained that the client has spent the returned £70,000 on purchases of various items connected with his ostensible business.

However, presumably as a precaution, Duff consulted the statute concerned with reporting suspicion and also took independent advice on the matter. As the relevant statute (S52 Drug Trafficking Act 1994) refers only to suspicion of a person who is engaged in drug money-laundering, Duff decided that he had no such suspicion. At most this related to a past-completed transaction and as his client was currently a prison inmate awaiting trial he could not possibly be so engaged.

So, fatefully, he decided to do nothing. Unfortunately, but understandably, Duff misunderstood his duty under Section 52. The cause of his professional ruin was not an intention to flout the law but a misunderstanding of it based upon ambiguous wording. Nonetheless despite accepting that this was a genuine mistake of law, the judge sent Duff to prison. In sentencing, the judge spoke of the need to send out a clear message to solicitors."

Notwithstanding the deterrent nature of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, there are important issues of principle here that should not lightly be abrogated nor ignored. Are lawyers really expected to act as policemen as well as being defenders their clients’ interests and protectors of the clients’ constitutionally guaranteed democratic rights? Of course, in the United Kingdom and for that matter the Cayman Islands, steeped in the tradition of parliamentary supremacy, Human Rights Acts and Conventions notwithstanding, it is apparently easier for Parliament or the Legislative Assembly to extinguish these constitutional safeguards without much effective protest. The position in Canada, with its Charter of Rights acting as the bedrock of its democracy, is mercifully different and may provide some hope of a reversal of these constitutional erosions. The gauntlet has been well and truly thrown down by the Law Society of Canada, which recently challenged the constitutionality of the reporting obligations imposed by the Canadian proceeds of crime legislation, to all intents and purposes a mirror the English and Caymanian models.

Foreshadowing this challenge was a remarkably robust communiqué issued on behalf of the Law Federations of Canada by Richard C. Gibbs Q.C. in his capacity as chairman of the Special Litigation Committee:

The Government's vision of the role of lawyers as State conscripts to secretly inform on their clients is completely repugnant to centuries of legal tradition and modern views of democracy: the legal profession is founded upon independence of the lawyer from the State, loyalty of the lawyer to the client, avoidance of conflicts of interest between the lawyer and the client, and the keeping of client confidences. Asking lawyers to report to the State on their clients is unacceptable to the Law Societies. All of these core values, along with the solicitor and client communication privilege, are recognized as pillars to our democracy. To protect the solicitor and client communication privilege while riding roughshod over the other core values of the legal profession is a completely unacceptable political response to increase State surveillance of transactions conducted for clients by lawyers. The Government has drawn the line as it sees fit and "consultation" with it has proved fruitless.

By unanimous resolution of all the Societies regulating the legal professions in Canada, the Special Litigation Committee of the Federation of Law Societies has been charged with asserting before the Court the traditional constitutional position of an independent legal profession in Canada unfettered in delivering loyal and confidential legal service to its clients. The FLSC Special Litigation Committee gratefully accepts the challenge of seeing that the Judiciary draws an appropriate line between lawyer State cooption and lawyer independence."

Stirring stuff indeed and lest it be thought that the judiciary, in the face of this hyperbole, would shirk its duty and adopt "a purposive construction" of the Canadian statute, the Law Societies in the various Canadian Provinces have been able to obtain injunctions preventing the extension of the reporting and tipping off aspects of the proceeds of crime legislation to the legal profession. At first blush, it might be tempting to conclude that the injunctions were premised exclusively on the explicit safeguards guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights. However, it is significant to note, that in all the judgments granting interlocutory relief, the judiciary recognized the principle of an independent bar as an essential unwritten rule of the constitution and a core democratic principle.

In the LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (as INTERVENOR) v ATTORNEY GENRAL OF CANADA 20th November 2001, the question before the Court was whether the impugned legislation had the effect of placing all lawyers in a profound conflict of interest between their duty of solicitor-client confidentiality owed to a client and their duty to report that client to the government. In considering the principles at stake, Allan J concluded that issues of (a) whether the independence of the bar is a constitutionally protected right and, if so, (b) whether the impugned legislation violates that right, raise serious constitutional questions to be tried. In the course of her judgment, ALLAN J agreed with the following propositions:

    1. An independent bar is a cornerstone of a democratic society and that the bar must be free from government regulation;
    2. An independent bar performs a critical role in the proper administration of justice;
    3. Solicitor – client confidentiality is a principle of fundamental justice;
    4. The protection of the independence of the judiciary is an unwritten principle of the Constitution.
    5. There is an interdependent relationship between an independent bar and an independent judiciary which requires that the former as well as the latter should be considered unwritten constitutional norms;
    6. An independent bar is essential to the maintenance of an independent judiciary. Just as the independence of the courts is beyond question so the independence of the bar must be beyond question. The lawyers of the independent bar have been the constant source of the judges who comprise the independent judiciary in English common law history. The "habit" of independence is nurtured by the bar. An independent judiciary without an independent bar would be akin to having a frame without a picture.
    7. In the performance of what may be called his private function, that is, in advising on legal matters and in representing clients before the courts and other tribunals, the lawyer is accorded great powers not permitted to other professionals.... By any standard, these powers and duties are vital to the maintenance of order in our society and the due administration of the law in the interest of the whole community.

Interestingly, in granting the injunction, the Learned Judge was unpersuaded by the Attorney General’s submissions on the necessity of the impugned legislation to as a means to give effect to Canada’s international commitments given to the FATF to co-operate in efforts to eliminate money laundering from the proceeds of crime. Furthermore, the Learned Judge was unimpressed with the argument that because other countries had enacted comparable legislation requiring lawyers to report "suspicious transactions", that the same should be extended to Canada. Indeed, on an examination of the legislation in the United States, she found no counterpart to the provision in its law and, on the basis of expert evidence doubted whether the US courts would regard such a provision as constitutional.

The Learned Judge also made reference to the European Parliament’s approval of a Directive in November 2001 amending an earlier 1991 Directive "on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering." The Directive, to be adopted shortly will be binding on all member states of the European Union. It is significant that an explanatory memorandum to the draft Directive notes that lawyers would be exempted from any suspicious transaction identification or reporting requirements connected with the representation or defence of a client in legal proceedings, and "again to make full allowance for the professional duty of discretion, as called for by the European Parliament," member states would have the option of allowing lawyers to communicate their suspicions of money laundering to their bar association or equivalent professional body. Thus, legal advice remains subject to the obligation of professional secrecy unless the lawyer is taking part in money laundering activities, the legal advice is provided for money laundering purposes, or the lawyer knows that the client is seeking legal advice for money laundering purposes. It is worth noting that in the ensuing debate on these issues, the presidents of the bars of Germany, Switzerland, Austrian and the Netherlands in a joint statement declared:

"Not even totalitarian dictators have asked law firms to do this. A citizen’s right to absolute confidentiality from his or her law firm is a basic fundamental legal right."

As previously stated, the Courts of all the other Canadian Provinces following a co-coordinated attack by the Law Societies and the Canadian Bar Association adopted this decision. In the wake of this judicial unity, the Attorney General of Canada was compelled in May of 2002 to reach an agreement with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada the effect of which is to exempt legal practitioners from the reporting obligations as previously described until the issue has been determined by the British Columbia Supreme Court and beyond. The impugned provisions were brought into effect on 12th June 2002 and until the determination of the appeal have no effect on the legal profession, including notaries.

From the Cayman perspective it is instructive to note how the judicious use of fundamental basic principles can be used as an effective safeguard against the threatened over-enthusiastic foreign inspired interferences of the Legislative and the Executive branches of Government. Brought to its most basic level, is the difference in duty owed to the alleged confessed criminal and the money launderer justified in principle? Is the money launderer entitled to expect less confidentiality in his dealings with his attorney than a person accused of a serious offence against property or person? On any analysis, there can be no justification for this inequality of treatment and it is this that undermines the basic premise of the reporting obligations imposed by our anti money laundering legislation. In any event, if the Canadian and European experience is any guide, the time has perhaps come for a reversal in the swing of the pendulum. Perhaps a "back to basic principles" approach will have to be adopted by the legal profession as a whole. These principles, often ignored in the cut and thrust of arcane negotiations between the Executive and the legal profession, are the keys to the tried and tested mechanisms that prevent the preemptory abrogation of long established constitutional common law rights. Society as a whole will be better served by this re-affirmation to the basic canons of our democracy. For Cayman though, and we hope not, it may well be that an invocation of these principles may be too little too late.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions