Jersey: Crédit Agricole v Papadimitiou

Privy Council decision goes to the heart of what financial institutions should know about the commercial rationale behind transactions and the source of customers' funds.

This case1 provides important guidance as to the circumstances in which a financial institution may be held to have had notice of impropriety based on its failure to ask proper questions about a financial transaction. The central question was whether Crédit Agricole ("the Bank") had constructive notice of a pre-existing proprietary right to funds which had been used to repay a loan facility. This would mean that the Bank would be unable to defeat a tracing claim brought against those funds by virtue of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In order to determine whether the Bank had notice, the Board was required to consider whether its knowledge of the transaction through which it received the funds was such that it should have made further inquiries, and whether such inquiries would have revealed impropriety, which would in turn have alerted the bank to the existence of an earlier proprietary right.

While each case is decided on its facts, this judgment will be of particular interest to financial services businesses concerning their level of understanding of the source of a customer's funds and the commercial rationale behind structures used in transactions involving those funds. The decision shines a spotlight on what are sometimes perceived as the more difficult areas to interpret in the Jersey Financial Services Commission's AML/CFT Handbook and provides guidance as to what constitutes understanding the 'commercial rationale' of a structure and related transactions. It should give banks and other financial services businesses pause for thought when considering client acceptance procedures, documentation and ongoing monitoring.


The plaintiff, Despina Papadimitiou ("Despina"), is the daughter of Alexandros Michailidis ("Alexandros") and his wife Irene. She also had a brother, Christo Michailidis ("Christo"). Alexandros was a wealthy man and had built up a collection of Art Deco furniture ("the Collection"), although Christo maintained custody of the Collection. When Alexandros died in 1995, the Collection passed to Irene. Christo sadly died in a tragic accident in July 1999. However, until his death he had shared a home and a life with a Mr Robin Symes ("Mr Symes") - the villain of the piece.

Following Christo's death Mr Symes sold the Collection for approximately US$15m. The proceeds were then laundered through the following transactions:

  1. US$4m was paid to a Panamanian company, Xolian Trader Inc ("Xolian") and US$10.4m was paid to another Panamanian company, Tradesk Limited ("Tradesk"), using an account held at LGT bank in Liechtenstein.
  2. Of the US$10.4m, US$10.3m was transferred to an account at the Bank through a Liechtenstein foundation called Pataco Foundation ("Pataco"). In turn, these monies were deposited in the Gibraltar branch of the Bank and credited to the account of Lombardi Corporation, a BVI entity incorporated at the request of Mr Symes.
  3. In a 'back-to-back' transaction, using the sum held in the Gibraltar branch as security, the Bank's London branch gave another company, Robin Symes Limited ("RSL"), a loan facility for up to US$10.3m which was drawn down and then repaid in full using US$9.8m of the funds held by Lombardi in Gibraltar. The rest of the US$10.3m was used by Mr Symes for his own purposes and was not pursued in these proceedings.

In 2001, Christo's family found out about the sale of the Collection by Mr Symes and (unsurprisingly) took the view that it was not his to sell. This discovery sparked a series of legal proceedings, however the relevant claim was brought in Gibraltar to recover the US$9.8m of the proceeds which the Bank had received in order to discharge the loan facility which it had provided to RSL in London. The claim was brought by Despina who, following the death of Irene, had been held to be the rightful owner of the collection.

At first instance Despina sought recovery from the Bank on three bases: (i) her pre-existing proprietary interest (ii) dishonest assistance and (iii) knowing receipt. All three claims failed. The Court found that there could be no dishonest assistance or knowing receipt because, put simply, there was no awareness of any wrong doing or unconscionable conduct. While it was accepted that the Bank had taken a lax approach to KYC, including insufficient inquiry into Mr Symes' wealth, such conduct was deemed excusable when viewed in the context of the compliance standards of the day. Further, because the transaction was structured using three jurisdictions (London, Gibraltar and France) the Bank did not have a comprehensive overview, which militated against a finding of unconscionable conduct or an awareness of wrongdoing on the part of staff at the Bank.

As to the proprietary claim, the Bank claimed that it was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The judge criticised the Bank for not having made full enquiry of LGT Bank as to the source of funds. However, he concluded that as the proceeds of sale had already been laundered by the time the funds were transferred into Pataco, all that the Bank would have been told was that the monies had been transferred by the Pataco foundation of which Mr Symes was the beneficiary. On this basis the Court held that such inquiries would not have revealed impropriety and therefore the Bank was not on notice.

Despina appealed, but only with regard to her proprietary right to the assets. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal on the basis that there was ample evidence that the Bank should have considered the commercial purpose of the scheme and that if the judge had done so he would have concluded that the purpose was improper. The Bank appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Privy Council.

The central question for the Privy Council was the same as that which had faced both the lower courts, namely did the Bank have constructive notice of a pre-existing proprietary right to the funds? Before moving on to the legal basis upon which the Board found that the Bank had constructive notice, it is important to briefly summarise what the Bank knew about the transaction because it was upon this factual basis (which the Bank did not dispute) that the Board was required to decide whether further inquiries should have been made.

  1. Around the time that Mr Symes sold the Collection (March 2000), a Swiss lawyer and non-executive board member ("the lawyer") of a sister entity within the Crédit Agricole group, introduced Mr Symes to the Bank. The lawyer noted in his evidence that he made the introduction in that capacity and that Mr Symes had told him he wished to set up a back-to-back facility in the sum of US$10m;
  2. The lawyer also introduced Mr Symes to the then Head of Private Banking at the Bank's London office ("the London Head");
  3. In June 2000 the Bank's Gibraltar branch carried out its KYC procedures in relation to Lombardi. The corporate service provider confirmed that Mr Symes was the beneficial owner of Lombardi and that his net worth was US$50m. The UK was given as his country of origin and residence;
  4. On 8 June 2000 the Bank's London branch prepared a credit analysis for the US$11.3m facility in favour of RSL on the basis that the facility would be used to repay an existing facility with another bank and that the collateral was to be a guarantee of US$10.3m together with a charge over antiquities valued at US$6m;
  5. A credit application form was completed for the purposes of the facility. RSL was shown as the applicant with Mr Symes stated to be the shareholder. Unsigned drafts of the credit application form stated that his net worth was in excess of US$100m. In the signed form that entry was crossed out. The application form gave details of Mr Symes' professional background as an art dealer, described how he had been introduced to the Bank and explained the security arrangements for the facility (namely a guarantee from Lombardi supported by the US$10.3m held at the Bank's Gibraltar branch, additional security of US$1m in the form of charges over antiques and a personal guarantee from Mr Symes);
  6. Capital and interest repayments were to be made by trading Mr Symes' stock of antiques;
  7. An arrangement fee of US$20,000 was to be charged with interest at 1.5% over Libor over a period of five years although it was envisaged that the repayment would occur before the end of the term;
  8. The Senior Risk Manager at the Bank's London branch endorsed the recommendation on the basis of the security arrangements, the overall return for the Bank and that Mr Symes would be a good source of future introductions;
  9. The application form was approved on 15 June 2000 by the Bank's credit committee in Paris. The approval was forwarded to the Bank's Gibraltar branch Legal and Compliance Manager on 19 June 2000;
  10. The London Head provided the Bank's Gibraltar branch with a completed standard letter of introduction which confirmed that Mr Symes had been known to him for at least three months, his name and address had been verified and the source of funds was legitimate (to the extent that nothing would lead him to make a SAR);
  11. On 28 June 2000 US$10.3m was remitted by LGT Bank in Liechtenstein to the Bank's Gibraltar branch;
  12. Between 30 June 2000 and the end of January 2001 RSL used the facility in London and on 13 August 2011 the Bank's Gibraltar branch transferred US$9.8m in satisfaction of the outstanding loan and RSL's account was closed on 29 August 2001.

The Decision of the Privy Council

In his leading judgment Lord Clarke framed the applicable test by reference to the judgment of Lord Neuberger in Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd2who having considered the relevant authorities concluded that the critical question was whether, on the facts known to a bank:

"a reasonable person with their attributes (ie those of a responsible large bank with the benefit of highly experienced insolvency practitioners as their appointed administrative receivers) should either have appreciated that a proprietary claim probably existed or should have made inquiries or sought advice, which would have revealed the probable existence of such a claim." [emphasis added]

Lord Clarke broke this single proposition down into three distinct circumstances in which a bank would find itself on notice. The first is where the bank appreciates that an earlier proprietary right probably exists and thus has actual notice of the right.

The second is where "a reasonable person with the attributes of the bank should have appreciated based on the facts already available to it that the right probably existed, in which case the bank has constructive notice of the existence of the right."

The third is where "the bank should have made inquiries or sought advice which would have revealed the probable existence of such a right." This too would also result in the bank having constructive notice.

The question was, therefore, whether the knowledge of the Bank fell within this third iteration. In order to answer this question the Board had to ask itself another; in what circumstances and to what extent it can properly be said that a bank should have made inquiries or sought advice? Having made reference to several authorities the Board held that such knowledge as would disclose "the mere possibility of a third party having a proprietary right" was insufficient; however such knowledge as would cause it to conclude that such a right probably existed was excessive. The position was, in fact, somewhere in the middle which the Board defined as follows:

"The bank must make inquiries if there is a serious possibility of a third party having such a right or, put it another way, if the facts known to the bank would give a reasonable banker in the position of the particular banker serious cause to question the propriety of the transaction."

In reaching this definition the Board altered the test as set out by Lord Neuberger insofar as a bank must have notice of a proprietary right, not merely a claim.

Applying this framework the Board agreed with the Court of Appeal that the judge at first instance had focused too narrowly on the impact of further inquiries into the source of funds and had overlooked the question of the underlying commercial rationale.

Had the Bank conducted further inquiries into the commercial rationale, the impropriety would quickly have become apparent because there could be no justification for such a complicated transaction to achieve such a simple goal, namely that of paying off a previous loan. It was observed that this could have been achieved by a simple money transfer. Instead, Mr Symes embarked on a transaction described as follows (the Board adopted the description provided by the Court of Appeal):

"Mr Symes had the money paid from Liechtenstein into two Panamanian companies. The money was then withdrawn from Panama accounts and transferred to a Liechtenstein foundation. On 7 June Mr Symes opened a deposit guarantee account in Gibraltar in the name of Lombardi Corporation which had been incorporated on 3 May 2000 and on 28 June the money was remitted to that account. That enabled the bank in London to grant Robin Symes Limited a term loan facility which was used to pay Mr Symes' debts. The web of companies used for the transaction would have involved expense and create doubt as to the commercial purpose. The agreement with the bank was expensive. It required an annual fee of $51,500 over the five year term and a $1,000 arrangement fee. Also an arrangement fee of $20,000 was charged to Robin Symes Limited. The difference between the interest earned on the deposit and the interest payable by Robin Symes Limited was calculated at around £180,000. No doubt the bank had not overcharged, but that did not mean that there was a commercial purpose other than to launder money."

In reaching its conclusion the Board rejected the Bank's argument that there was nothing suspicious about the transaction at the time because the Bank had no knowledge about the Collection or any dispute with the Michailiidis family. It held that there was ample evidence that at the time a reasonable bank considering entering into such a transaction would carry out inquiries into its underlying commercial purpose. An inquiry into the commercial purpose behind this complex and expensive transaction could only have alerted a reasonable bank to an improper motive, namely to launder money. The Board further rejected the Bank's submission that tax mitigation, a proposed moved to Switzerland or a desire to change banks could have constituted a bona fide commercial purpose for the transaction.


In a short but important judgment Lord Sumption explains that the principle in this case concerns property rights, rather than an actionable duty to investigate. Therefore, its application is limited to circumstances where a claimant has established a proprietary interest in an asset and a defendant seeks to defeat the claim by virtue of an absence of notice. A claim in knowing receipt is the only other action identified to which the principle would directly apply.

In spite of this warning it is difficult to imagine that courts, particularly offshore, will not look to this decision for guidance when required to determine whether or not a financial institution had constructive notice of impropriety. The most obvious example would be a claim in dishonest assistance such as that brought in Nolan v. Minerva Trust & Others3where, interalia, a court must decide whether a person who acts on behalf of another should be bound by the knowledge which that other person for whom he acts has of the transaction. The decision symbolises an increasing judicial readiness to apply objective standards of competence to financial institutions and hold them to account based on what they should have known, rather than what they did know. This approach draws the law closer into line with regulatory standards and underscores the need for financial services providers to not only understand what a client is trying to achieve (in this case the repayment of a loan) but also how this is to be achieved.

Offshore structures and arrangements can be double-edged swords in that their features and those of the legal and regulatory regimes in which they operate can be misused. While one person's use of a discretionary trust can be part of legitimate tax or succession planning, it can be part of a criminal's attempt to distance himself from the legal ownership of the proceeds of crime.

Mr Symes' use of Panamanian companies, Liechtenstein bank accounts and foundations and offshore fiduciaries to run the entities are all examples of a situation where the form of the structure becomes an end in itself rather than the underlying economic transaction, in this case to pay off a loan. When identifying the commercial rationale behind a structure it is not uncommon for service providers to take the less challenging route and simply identify the underlying activities. For example, the commercial rationale behind a Jersey discretionary trust owning a BVI incorporated company which holds a London property can commonly, but erroneously, be described as 'property owning'. This is similar in concept to the way in which the commercial purpose behind the credit facility in the Crédit Agricole case was described as being to repay an existing loan from another bank using funds that belonged to Mr Symes.

In the case of a Jersey trust and company structure, the correct approach would be to ask why a trust and a company are necessary. It may well be fiscally driven in which case a copy of the tax advice which supports the structure should be sought.

When trying to understand a transaction or structure, the below should be key considerations:

  1. Understand not only what your client is trying to achieve, but how they are trying to do so. Are there any unusual or unwarranted complexities about the structure you are being asked to administer or the structure from which funds are being received?
  2. Ensure that you understand what role each entity in a structure does and why it is there.
  3. Are there any entities connected with jurisdictions which have unusual secrecy provisions?
  4. Obtain documentary evidence as to the ultimate beneficial ownership and control of the structure. The requirement to understand the ultimate beneficial ownership and control of the structure is replicated in the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008 and guidance provided in the AML/CFT Handbook published by the Jersey Financial Services Commission.
  5. Trace the source of any funds back to where the funds originated, if applicable, and not simply to the remitter. Understand that source of funds relates to the activity which generated the funds in the first place, not just the location where the funds came from.
  6. Be alert, and be sceptical. If something does not seem right, it may not be - and you should look into it.
  7. Once you have a concern that anything improper might be happening, any payments must be embargoed while it is investigated. The embargo should only be lifted if, on investigation, the concerns turn out to be unfounded. Amend terms and conditions to allow the delay of payments in such circumstances.
  8. Do not place undue reliance on the status of any introducer or referrer of business. They are not the individuals who face the risks you are facing.
  9. Do not be blinded by commercial returns which you will make on establishing a structure or otherwise facilitating transactions. Ask yourself why a client is seemingly willing to pay over the odds or even pay the going rate for something which could be achieved at a lower cost. It may be a sign of attempted money laundering.
  10. Finally, do not forget about your obligations under the criminal law to report suspicious activity. Fraud, and attempted fraud, is usually grounds for filing a SAR.

For offshore service providers the decision in Crédit Agricole should reinforce the lessons of Nolan v. Minerva Trust & Others. Those who avoid asking difficult questions because they fear the answer - and perceive safety in not knowing - risk far greater problems down the line. Having robust anti-money laundering procedures will not of itself provide complete protection against the risks occasioned by administering client entities. Where an action by a third party seeks to fix an institution with responsibility for losses incurred; it will become necessary to demonstrate that practices and procedures were fit for purpose and operated effectively. The cost of failure can be very expensive indeed.


1 Crédit Agricole Corporation and Investment Bank (Appellant) v Papadimitriou (Respondent) [2015]


2 Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 347, [2012] Ch 453

3 Nolan v. Minerva Trust & Others [2014] JRC 078A

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

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

In association with
Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.