Regulatory

Blog

Regulatory

Contributors

Aki Corsoni-Husain
Aki Corsoni-Husain
  • Aki Corsoni-Husain

  • Partner
  • Cyprus
George Apostolou
George Apostolou
  • George Apostolou

  • Partner
  • Cyprus
Jermaine Case
Jermaine Case
  • Jermaine Case

  • Associate
  • British Virgin Islands
Chiara Deceglie
Chiara Deceglie
  • Chiara Deceglie

  • Partner
  • Luxembourg
Massimiliano della Zonca
Massimiliano della Zonca
  • Massimiliano della Zonca

  • Senior Associate
  • Luxembourg
Philip Graham
Philip Graham
  • Philip Graham

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Ayana Hull
Ayana Hull
  • Ayana Hull

  • Counsel
  • British Virgin Islands
Katerina Katsiami
Katerina Katsiami
  • Katerina Katsiami

  • Associate
  • Cyprus
Andrew Knight
Andrew Knight
  • Andrew Knight

  • Partner
  • Luxembourg
Evi Koutsioumpa
Evi Koutsioumpa
  • Evi Koutsioumpa

  • Associate
  • Luxembourg
Joshua Mangeot
Joshua Mangeot
  • Joshua Mangeot

  • Senior Associate
  • British Virgin Islands
Mirza Manraj
Mirza Manraj
  • Mirza Manraj

  • Counsel
  • Hong Kong
Elina Mantrali
Mirza Manraj
  • Elina Mantrali

  • Associate
  • Cyprus
Vanessa Molloy
Vanessa Molloy
  • Vanessa Molloy

  • Partner
  • Luxembourg
Andrea Moundi Savvides
Andrea Moundi Savvides
  • Andrea Moundi Savvides

  • Associate
  • Cyprus
Marina Stavrou
Marina Stavrou
  • Marina Stavrou

  • Associate
  • Cyprus
Matt Taber
Matt Taber
  • Matt Taber

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Carolynn Vivian
Carolynn Vivian
  • Carolynn Vivian

  • Senior Associate
  • Cayman Islands

KYC Laws in the Cayman Islands

A recent decision of the Financial Services Division of the Cayman Islands Grand Court (Fortunate Drift Ltd v Canterbury Securities Ltd) examined whether the Court had jurisdiction to compel a party to produce information sought by a financial service provider to protect it from breaching its statutory obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations.

Justice Kawaley found the Court had no statutory power to order Fortunate Drift to provide Canterbury with the KYC information it had requested following a change in the beneficial ownership of Fortunate Drift. However, Justice Kawaley held that the court did have inherent jurisdiction and as a condition of continuing the order in which the undertakings were given, to order Fortune Drift, who had the benefit of the freezing of dispositions of the shares, to provide the information that Canterbury legitimately required for compliance with its statutory obligations.

Harneys’ detailed Litigation Blog post can be found here.