JERSEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Christopher Griffin, Sophie Hancock, Tshogofatso Dhlamini, Rachael Barber, David Patterson and Mike Kushner, Carey Olsen
2.11 Implications of Additional, Non- Financial Services Regulations As a small jurisdiction, Jersey has not seen a plethora of non-financial services regulations to deal with privacy, cybersecurity, social media content, or software development. Nonetheless, Jersey has implemented data protection legisla - tion under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 and is deemed an “equivalent country” by the EU for the purposes of the EU’s data protection laws. It should be noted that the JFSC has exten - sive investigation and enforcement powers. If it comes to the attention of the JFSC that a particular business’ behaviour is likely to cause reputational damage to Jersey, the JFSC will not hesitate to step in. 2.12 Review of Industry Participants by Parties Other than Regulators There are no express requirements placed on other vendors (such as lawyers and account - ants) in relation to the activities of industry par - ticipants. However, such other vendors are keen to preserve Jersey’s reputation as a well-regu - lated financial services jurisdiction and will likely decline to act for marginal industry participants. 2.13 Conjunction of Unregulated and Regulated Products and Services Generally, industry participants like to segregate their regulated business from their non-regulated business in a separate entity for a variety of rea - sons, including: • calculation of regulatory capital requirements; • reporting to the JFSC; • accounting; • segregation of assets and liabilities; and
• so that ancillary activities (eg, employing personnel and renting office space) can be undertaken by a non-regulated entity. The JFSC have not issued any formal guidance on the preferred approach. However, such seg - regation makes the division of responsibilities clearer for the JFSC at the time of application and also makes ongoing regulatory supervision easier. 2.14 Impact of AML and Sanctions Rules See response to 2.2 Regulatory Regime . 2.15 Financial Action Task Force Standards AML and sanctions rules in Jersey generally follow the standards imposed by FATF (see 2.2 Regulatory Response ). Indeed, the MONEYVAL Fifth Round Mutual evaluation report, published on 24 July 2024, assessed Jersey against inter - national standards (including the FATF Recom - mendations) to determine the effectiveness of its AML/CFT measures and concluded that Jersey’s effectiveness in preventing financial crime was among the highest level found in jurisdictions There are no specific regulatory restrictions on the offering of otherwise regulated products and services from another jurisdiction in a reverse solicitation scenario, assuming these are non- Jersey products and any services are being provided from outside Jersey. In the event that any financial services are being marketed into Jersey then there are content requirements that may apply. If the products or services are to be advertised in Jersey or offered to Jersey inves - tors (other than by way of reverse solicitation), then further advice is recommended. evaluated around the world. 2.16 Reverse Solicitation
438 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook