BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v LGL Trustees Limited 19-02-2021 [2021] JRC 053 (19 February 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2021/2021_053.html Cite as: [2021] JRC 53, [2021] JRC 053 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde Smith, OBE., and Jurats Ronge and Hughes |
The Attorney General
-v-
LGL Trustees Limited
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following guilty pleas to the following charges:
|
1 count of: |
Failure to comply with the requirements of Article 11(1)(f) of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008, contrary to Article 37(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1). |
|
1 count of: |
Failure to comply with the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008 contrary to Article 37(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 2).
|
Plea: Guilty
Details of Offence:
As to count 1, LGL failed to recognise and respond to the risks that a structure it set up and administered in Jersey might be used to embezzle funds from the public purse of a "high risk" country, namely Angola, for the benefit of its then ruling family.
As to count 2, LGL failed to identify and verify the controllers of one of its customers. Having failed to obtain the information at the outset of the business relationship as they were required to, they then failed to remedy this for another six years.
There was no suggestion that any of the funds provided by Angola were of suspicious origin or that the investments into which the funds were placed were themselves suspicious; however LGL failed to identify the real risks of money laundering that were apparent.
Details of Mitigation:
Early guilty pleas, cooperative during the investigation of the offences.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
A fine in the sum of £650,000 sought. |
|
Count 2: |
No separate penalty. |
Contribution of £50,000 towards prosecution costs is further sought.
Sentence and Observations of the Court:
|
Count 1: |
A fine in the sum of £550,000 ordered. |
|
Count 2: |
No separate penalty. |
|
|
|
Costs order made in the sum of £50,000.
Total: £600,000 to be paid within three months.
H.M Solicitor General M. Jowitt Q.C Advocate.
Advocate W. Grace for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. We are sitting this morning simply to announce decision. The reasons for that decision will follow shortly in a judgment which has been drafted but not yet fully approved.
2. The decision therefore is as follows:
(i) Count 1, we fine LGL Trustees Limited £550,000.
(ii) Count 2, we impose no penalty.
(iii) We order LGL Trustees Limited to make a contribution to the costs of the prosecution of £50,000.
(iv) The total penalty therefore imposed is £600,000 and we give LGL three months in which to pay.
3. That is the decision of the Court.
Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008
Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.
AG v Caversham Fiduciary Services Ltd, Caversham Trustees Ltd and Bell [2005] JRC 165
AG v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC Jersey Branch [2020] JRC 59
