THERE are two issues that should have our urgent attention – firstly, the start of the hurricane season and secondly, the issue of Britain’s proposal for a public register of beneficial interests and the ongoing raging debate surrounding it.
The hurricane season started last week, and our own recent experiences have confirmed the old saying that it takes one catastrophic event to make the season a bad one.
And while the forecasts indicate that this year’s hurricane season won’t be as active as last year’s, this should not give us undue comfort; our preparations against the possibility of another hard season are essential.
Together, as a community, we must participate in our own preparations and support the plans and programmes of our disaster management agency. The government, is to be commended for their programme of Continuity Management Training, in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, and it is to be hoped that they will also take steps to step up public awareness more generally of the need to prepare for the worst.
We pray that we will be spared this year, since our recovery from last year has been slow and sometimes frustrating; and critical aspects of infrastructure replacement are yet to be addressed.
The other issue, that perhaps has not had the public attention in Anguilla it should have been given, is the issue of Britain’s demands for the establishment of a public register of beneficial interests. We believe that, if implemented, this will have a disastrously negative impact on our financial services sector, a key lifeblood of our economy, and a source of earnings that helps our people maintain and improve their lives. These registers could require British overseas territories such as ours, and others including the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands, to publish details of the true owners of companies based there. By contrast, the same would not necessarily apply to the British Crown Dependencies, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which are entitled to make their own laws.
We are all in favour of accountability; and all in favour of proper regulation of the financial services sector; but we must resist attempts at British over-reach in this matter; and of the unfair treatment which the new proposed rules would impose on our industry. The administrations in the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands have been very vocal indeed in their opposition to the development. Our government has, unfortunately, been less so.
The Chief Executive of Jersey finance has put it very eloquently and correctly in a letter to The Economist:
“Public registers of company owners in offshore financial centres are not the answer to problems surrounding tax evasion and the lack of financial transparency. Such registers are the brainchild of a group of unelected NGOs and lobbyists. There is no evidence to show that registers are effective, which is hardly surprising. Criminals intent on laundering money through a company are unlikely to add their true identity and address to a public register.
There is a better way of ensuring that global standards of transparency are upheld and criminals rooted out. In Jersey, we ensure that licensed service providers verify ownership of the companies they administer. These regulated providers, who must follow tried and tested know-your-customer procedures, have an incentive to make sure records are accurate, because false records may lead to a loss of their licence. Ownership data is freely available to the people that need it, the regulators and law enforcement officials, and is now automatically exchanged under the common reporting standard.
There is also a wider issue about the right to privacy. The exposure to cyber-risk, identity theft and misuse of data have been forgotten in the clamour for public registers. Moreover, there are many, perfectly legitimate individuals residing in unstable countries who, reasonably, may not want the details of the companies they own to be publicly available to everyone, including corrupt governments and various unscrupulous people.”
He might well have been more specific by mentioning the extremely serious kidnap risk to which the public availability of this information is more likely than not to give rise.
In the British Virgin Islands, both government and opposition have come together in public demonstration – not just merely against the measure, but as a statement that they are willing to stand up and fight to protect their economy and people’s livelihoods. The Premier and Finance Minister of BVI, Orlando Smith, also wrote a letter to The Economist to similar effect. But more than that, as a proactive measure the BVI government has instructed a major international law firm and two QCs to prepare a legal challenge to the UK Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill (or “Act” as it will be when passed), and the constitutional and human rights issues and infringements involved, so watch this space as sparks fly!
It is a sad reflection that we, in Anguilla, await our government’s lead on this matter. But even while we do so, we who are so concerned must let our voices be heard. We wholeheartedly agree with the Premier of the Cayman Islands, who recently said: “Further, imposing such an obligation on the Overseas Territories, while exempting the Crown Dependencies, discriminates unfairly against the Overseas Territories. This amendment is based solely on prejudice and a willful misunderstanding of our current regulatory framework”.
You may be aware, that as a lawyer, I have been actively involved in the financial services sector. I have been at the forefront of the effort to craft rules and regulations that allow us to be responsible, respected internationally and competitive at the same time. I understand only too well the value of the financial services industry to our economy. In this context, I will be writing to Chief Minister Victor Banks asking for an urgent meeting on the issue; and for us to go forward with a united stance in defense of the livelihood of the people of Anguilla.
