Coronavirus (COVID-19) update Viberts announces its expansion with nine new employees joining the firm Partner Jamie Orchard recognised in Citywealth’s Future Leaders Top 100 list Property law specialist Paul Harben joins Viberts as partner Viberts recognised in latest Legal 500 UK 2021 rankings Viberts Partner, Rose Colley appointed as President of ‘The Law Society of Jersey’ Vote for Jamie Orchard, Partner who has been shortlisted for ‘Family lawyer of the year, Partner’ in the Future Leaders Awards 2020 Senior Conveyancing Manager, Chris Duverger celebrates 50 years in the role Julia Smirnova qualifies as an English Solicitor Viberts Associate, Eleanor Colley has been listed in the 2020 eprivateclient Channel Islands Top 35 under 35 Jersey Private Funds COVID-19 and the Jersey property market ‘Foreclosure’ bankruptcy Reasonableness and residential tenancies - an update for residential tenants and landlords New law comes into force for executing wills during the Coronavirus pandemic Unhappy in your marriage during the lockdown? Commercial landlords and tenants: Reasonableness is key Alexandra Cohen qualifies as an English Solicitor Espresso update: Government of Jersey’s support for businesses Coronavirus and construction contracts Child contact issues/shared residence in lockdown - an update (Un)happy families and Covid-19 Payment of child maintenance and the Coronavirus Commercial tenants - proactive measures to consider Wedlock-deadlock: How your insurance can help you if COVID-19 turns your big day into a big dud Coronavirus and the issues it raises about contact for separated parents COVID-19: A force majeure event How to protect your marriage from COVID-19 Pandemic practical advice for businesses and individuals Spring 2020: Corporate governance and looking forward Viberts appoints Solicitors, Oliver Hughes and Emily Paris-Hunter Promotions announced at Viberts Wills & Estates in Jersey Employment law expert Vicky Milner to join Viberts as Partner Dismissals deemed to have been unfair do not always seem unfair Drawing up a Lasting Power of Attorney What is a Calderbank offer? What to expect when you attend voluntarily for interview at the police station Recent developments that apply to the granting of bail in Jersey Viberts Partner, Jamie Orchard acts in landmark family law case Viberts Partner, Rebecca Morley-Kirk represents defendant in landmark mental health case Viberts helps commemorate 250th anniversary of Jersey Reform Day Experienced family lawyer returns to Viberts Digital Wills Beneficial Ownership Presumed Consent has arrived Six things you should never forget when buying a property Green Funerals What happens if you don't make an LPA? Litigation risk and the “Chinese Tiger” Keeping divorce costs down A helping hand through the door Brexit: EU citizen living in Jersey? Family Law and those new year blues Employee Benefit Trustees await developments Parents: Let’s talk about sex Registration of charities in Jersey The Limited Liability Partnerships (Jersey) Law 2018 Conveyancing: It’s about far more than just property The devil is in the detail A reconciliation contract – an alternative to divorce? GDPR action plan A guide to the new Lasting Power of Attorney law Appeal court examines the necessary elements required for an indecent assault Providing for pets in a will Tout tel under scrutiny Jersey's HSS failures contribute to death of resident Child contact at Christmas: make a clear plan DIY divorce Setting up a small business Where are your assets located? Cohabitation: you may not get back what you put in to a property Contract of purchase found to be binding in boundary dispute between neighbours The electric vehicle revolution - is this the calm before the storm? The foreshore: where do you draw the (water)line? Marriage vs. cohabitation No ring? No inheritance rights Making a claim for a holiday ruined by illness New building levy in Jersey Acting as an executor Dividing the marital assets in a divorce Property planning appeals - how long have I got? The issue of parking when buying property Boundary dispute Travel contracts: United Airlines' ejection Rejecting a buy out offer in a quasi-partnership company not necessarily fatal to securing a just and equitable winding up No post-resignation implied duty of confidentiality in director’s contract Failure to make a declaration of directors’ conflicts of interest Which of multiple breaches of the proper purpose rule matters? Art 125 scheme to move a Jersey company to England Subjective and objective views of directors’ duties How long have you got to sue a dishonest director? Commercial disappointment & failure of substratum not the same Generous view of fund directors’ duties It's not you, nor me: is the concept of 'no fault divorce' on the cards? Inherent jurisdiction invoked to plug an inconvenient gap in (Manx) company law Directors’ wrongful trading clearly defined Jersey's succession laws & your family finances The "boomerang generation" & divorce Leaving a bequest to charity in your will Charitable gift of Jersey land in a will and possible conflict that can arise Tax changes for non-dom UK property owners Parental Responsibility - have you got consent for travelling as a single parent with children? Rules to determine fair value payable for shares in a company merger Guidance for preparing statements of solvency Social media & relationship breakdown How not to seek a just and equitable winding up Board deadlock and shareholder intervention It’s time to push back against “Jersey, United Kingdom” because it’s got out of hand Who is liable for storm damage to property? Clear contracts avoid murky waters for land owners Family Law jargon buster Litigation jargon buster Non-executive director: just a touch of class? “Not in front of the children!” - Trust administration Victory for Viberts’ client after six year trust battle Brexit, Jersey and the sequel to Protocol 3 Declaratory relief in the context of regulatory supervision Winding up of Jersey companies Setting aside trusts on the grounds of mistake as to tax consequences - S & T Trusts Winding up of companies Re Monarch Investments Ltd. Sickness in the workplace Legal expenses insurance: what’s it all about? Constructive unfair dismissal Avoiding the christmas party from hell Bullying & harassment in the workplace Workplace dress code: why can’t I wear this to work? Social media: the need for clear guidelines The new housing and work law legislation has arrived A modern workplace: diverse, family friendly and flexible. Bullying & harassment in the workplace: how to tackle it as an employer Bullying & harassment in the workplace: how to handle it as an employee Age discrimination: retirement age can no longer be stipulated by employers When is a PILON clause correctly exercised? Transgender discrimination case Can spousal maintenance ever be forever? Top tips for keeping divorce costs down Divorce d-day Parental responsibility, residence & contact - Children Law in Jersey Inherited assets & dividing these in a divorce Divorce: what about the children? Divorce with dignity Fast cars, hiding assets, expensive new partners... Has divorce law now gone too far in favour of women? No more rummaging in bins! Should the law change be changed for unmarried couples - gay or heterosexual? The impact on children when a relationship breaks down Delays in law drafting can be damaging The pre-nuptial agreement comes of age Interesting developments regarding financial matters on divorce Keeping the family together: the collaborative approach to family law I love you - but what about a pre-nup? In the dark about divorce? Separated: Let the whole family have a happy Christmas Child maintenance: defining a ‘parent’ Harassment remedies - domestic abuse Divorce it isn’t all about the parents Getting re-married? What you need to consider Happily living together? Protect your interests Settling your family disputes outside court Counting the cost of your divorce Planning some changes? Buying your first home together Two generation homes Land transfer tax New year, new you, new business Have you got a will? Business leases - MOT before you start the journey A property snap shot Putting down roots: business leases & security of tenure Strawberry fields forever? Seymour Villa & Seymour Cottage - a planning tale Tenants’ deposits: are they now “safe as houses”? Shaky completions in Jersey's Royal Court New leases - what a landlord now needs to know Is court that bad? The role of the arbitrator Making home improvements? Do your homework first The quirkiest restrictions found in Jersey property deeds Incapacity: Who will manage my affairs if I become incapable? Death is a taxing matter: Have you considered the stamp duty implications of making a will? Brussels IV: Own property abroad? Have you got the will to make a will? New mental health law aims to bring peace of mind Obtaining probate in Jersey & the advantages of having a separate Jersey Will Where there is a will there is a way! Modernisation of Jersey's inheritance laws To will or not to will? Selling the reversionary interest in your home: the pros & cons A guide to mental capacity & lasting powers of attorney in Jersey Digital life after death A reform of the tutelle system; minors inheriting property Liability when an airline crashes? David & Goliath - round 3 the battle between the developer, the planning department and the home owner Royal court decision empowers the court to order damages for a neighbours’ encroachment Privacy - an issue for all levels of society Turning an injury into compensation The customer is always right: returning faulty goods What is privilege? Do you need planning permission? How to appeal a planning decision Expert medical reports: to disclose or not to disclose? Do I have a case? Don't get caught with your pants down Above your neighbour’s land? You’re not above the law when it comes to neighbourly duties Breach of an illegal contract: enforceable or not? Viberts' relocation guide for HNW individuals Discovery of documents in litigation proceedings Legal privilege client guide Viberts Property Brochure Jersey wills jargon buster Probate jargon buster Corporate Law jargon buster Commercial law brochure Family Law Brochure Litigation brochure Jersey resident will questionnaire Non Jersey resident will questionnaire Property savvy buyers guide Property moving checklist Property family moving guide Types of asset holding structures in Jersey How to appeal against a Royal Court decision Bringing a personal injury claim How to respond to employee claims Getting divorced in Jersey How to apply for foreign probate The process of applying for probate in Jersey Beware of using social media during a break up Cohabiting couples: the legal rights in Jersey Buying a property in Jersey Buying share transfer property in Jersey Making a will in Jersey How to apply for fast track probate in Jersey Who to appoint as an executor of a Jersey will Is there a future for trust work in Jersey, post Panama? Have trusts lost the advantage of privacy? What does the future of trust work in Jersey look like? How can trustees minimise the impact of legal action brought by beneficiaries? How can lawyers best advise trustees? Are trusts fit for purpose? How "confidential" is a settlor's letter of wishes? What approach should trustees take to investing? Interview: The classification of beneficiaries: why it matters What are the challenges facing trusts? Channel Island trusts - a safe haven, not evasion. 1 of 13: Can you act for both parties in a fixed fee divorce? 2 of 13: Divorce - Is it a case of the winner takes it all? 3 of 13: How do I get a straightforward divorce? 4 of 13: Have we got a high divorce rate in Jersey? 5 of 13: Is it worth signing a pre-nuptial? 6 of 13: Is the law different for gay couples who are cohabitating? 7 of 13: The difference between Jersey & UK divorce law 8 of 13: Top tips for separating couples on legal advice 9 of 13: What can I expect to pay for a divorce? 10 of 13: What do you need to do to get a pre-nuptial? 11 of 13: What is collaborative law good for? 12 of 13: Why do lawyers letters cost so much? 13 of 13: Why it is so important to get your financial claims dismissed? Transparent guide to divorce process & fees The future of employment: Explosive times No jab, no job? Trapped - the impact of Covid on relationship breakdowns A guide to buying your next property 'off-plan' Viberts helps ten-year-old William raise money for charity with ‘Magic Reindeer Food’ Viberts announces three promotions NOM! Viberts strengthens its Employment Team with new appointment New stamp duty rates on property purchases Viberts Écrivain sworn in as Jersey Advocate Has COVID-19 interrupted your business? Espresso briefing: New Financial Disclosure Law Viberts shortlisted in the 2021 Citywealth IFC Awards for ‘Law Firm of the Year – Jersey’ Separated families and Christmas 2020 – What are the rules in Jersey? Viberts to host webinar with Integritas Wealth Partners Covid vaccinations and the law Espresso update: Government of Jersey's support for businesses update Viberts Family Law Partner, Jamie Orchard has been recognised in the 2019 Channel Islands Top 35 Under 35 Post Brexit – How EU nationals obtain permission to continue living in Jersey Espresso briefing: Update on a challenge to new transparency and disclosure laws Why prenups aren’t just for the rich and famous Recent judgment clarifies new capacity law What are compromise agreements? Assessing mental capacity: Who is the best person for the job? A brief explanation of Jersey work permits Gary Burgess interviews Viberts’ Rose Colley and Eleanor Colley Jersey tribunal case comment: Estelle Burns v Voisin Law Case Note: Royal Court judgment 8 April 2021: de Than v Institute of Law [2021]JRC098 Case Note: Royal Court judgment on costs, 11 May 2021: de Than v Institute of Law [2021]JRC134 Construction contracts and COVID-19 Viberts Family Law team Holding Court – The Jersey law podcast – Episode 2: Financial settlements Holding Court – The Jersey law podcast – Episode 1: Divorce and separation It’s coming home…. potentially with personal liability for the alleged perpetrator Residential status - Do you qualify for buying property? Types of property ownership in Jersey The G7's Global Corporate Tax Rate: A good thing for Jersey? Costs of buying/selling property in Jersey Buying property - Checks we undertake Six ways to ensure successful communication during a divorce Parental responsibility: What is it? Who has it? And what are the implications? Getting divorced in Jersey – what you need to know Divorce: an A to Z guide of legal terms A guide to managing a delayed property possession Buying a 'fixer-upper' property Viberts Corporate Associate, Advocate Eleanor Colley named one of the Channel Islands Top 35 Under 35 for the second time Case note: Royal Court judgment 28 May 2021 Dix v Sigma Group Limited [2021]JRC159 Buying a property for the first time? Holding Court – The Jersey law podcast – Episode 3: Silver splitters Holding Court – The Jersey law podcast – Episode 4: Cohabitation Update - Jersey business interruption insurance, COVID-19 Claims Viberts awarded Lexcel accreditation for the 10th consecutive year Share transfer properties: seven commonly asked questions Viberts shortlisted in the 2022 Citywealth IFC Awards for 'Law Firm of the Year - Jersey' Case note: Royal Court judgment 29 July 2021: Pritchard v AG [2021]JRC119 Human error, working from home and data protection Case note: Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal judgment on staying proceedings, de Than v Institute of Law [2019]TRE203B Holding Court – The Jersey law podcast – Episode 5: Children Holding Court – The Jersey law podcast – Episode 6: tips & traps of social media Splitting from your partner - what about the family pet? Workplace investigations: Taking a bird's-eye view A guide to Jersey residential leases Employment law changes: increase to minimum wage from January 2022 A summary of Jersey law on redundancy Case Note: Pallot v Jersey Heritage Trust [2021] TRE 041; Discrimination in the workplace and Covid-19 Viberts bursary student interview: Rebecca De Freitas, Trainee English Solicitor Case note: Clinical negligence Family law expert Emma Hollywood joins Viberts as a Senior Associate Viberts Corporate team advises on the sale of Omega to TEAM Viberts celebrates Senior Partner Charles Thacker’s 50 years at the firm Viberts announces ten firm wide promotions A profession emerges fit for the post-pandemic world A foot is 11 inches long. Alice in Wonderland? No, in Jersey it's perfectly true Viberts helps eleven-year-old William raise money for charity with ‘Magic Reindeer Food’ Fixed fee legal opinions and Form 7 certificates for HM Land Registry Espresso briefing: Updates to Jersey limited partnership legislation Viberts Employment Law breakfast seminar - The Employment Life Cycle - 'New Joiners' Putting a stamp on things Public Health pitfalls for Jersey landlords Viberts Family team win Corporate INTL 2022 award – Jersey Family Law Firm of the Year Conduct outside the workplace: paws for thought Car-on-bike collisions in Jersey: A legal update Compromise agreements explained Viberts Dispute Resolution team wins ‘The Global 100’ - ‘Litigation Law Firm of the Year - Jersey’ Case note: Royal Court decision on costs [2022]JRC016 Murray v Camerons Limited Viberts' staff raise £8,000 for four local charities Espresso briefing: Amendments to the Electronic Communications (Jersey) Law 2000 Reach Magazine interviews Rebecca De Freitas, Viberts Trainee English Solicitor Legal aid in Jersey has changed. What are the alternatives? The recent P&O redundancies highlight why it is critical to follow a fair process P&O Ferries and offshore employment Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ polluting the Jersey Water Supply P&O Ferries: settlement payments and sailing too close to the wind Contractual Interpretation – The Importance of making your intentions clear to all Connect Magazine interviews Viberts Partner Giles Emmanuel for its 'Time out with' series The Sandwich Generation Case Note: Dowling v Concentric Analytics Limited [2021] TRE 107; Tribunal decision on unfair dismissal Viberts launches Client Service Charter Stamp duty and buying for the first time in Jersey MONEYVAL visit update - next assessment is scheduled to take place in 2023 Viberts Associate Alexandra Cohen has been shortlisted in the Jersey Finance 2022 Rising Stars Awards Help! My parents need care Viberts Employment Law breakfast seminar - The Employment Life Cycle - 'Managing Sickness Absence' A pre-nuptial agreement: Insurance for your marriage An overview of Jersey’s 2022 election Case note: Royal Court decision [2022] JRC077 Falle v Russell & Russell Long Covid through the looking glass How would the will issues in the latest Downton Abbey film be resolved if it were set in Jersey? Viberts achieves an eleventh year of LEXCEL re-accreditation How a recent change in Jersey case law has impacted the calculation of child maintenance payments Viberts Employment Law breakfast seminar - The Employment Life Cycle - 'Misconduct' Bank of England scraps mortgage affordability test Top 5 Jersey divorce and separation myths Viberts lawyer shortlisted as future leader Case note: Royal Court decision on statutory annual leave accrued during sick leave Viberts announces three-year sponsorship of major Jersey Schools initiative Make Jersey great again for US investors Viberts recognised in latest Legal 500 UK 2023 rankings Viberts recognised in latest Legal 500 UK 2022 rankings Jersey Legal Opinions A guide to buying off-plan Viberts Employment Law breakfast seminar - The Employment Life Cycle - 'Leavers' Space for confusion Is a nest best? Medical mistakes – the rise of clinical negligence claims Viberts bursary student interviews: Isaac du Val and Ella Harrison World Cup fever – how to avoid getting caught offside Christmas and the workplace: no need to ‘Claus’ a scene Good Divorce Week - Ending the Family Court Crisis Child contact at Christmas: making a clear plan Viberts Private Client lawyer sworn in as Jersey Advocate Viberts announces promotions Viberts helps eleven-year-old William Highfield raise money for charity with ‘Magic Reindeer Food’ United we stand Viberts Employment Law breakfast seminar - Employment in a changing world - 'Challenges of the workplace' Case note: Royal Court decision on authorisation to administer vaccinations to person without mental capacity Jersey: Home to the world’s first “Data Trust” Trustees – Go green or go home Case Note: Court Decision [2015] JCA109 Rep of Otto Poon Trust Rebecca De Freitas qualifies as an English Solicitor Espresso Briefing – Guidance concerning the disqualification of a person from acting as a director Viberts Family Law lawyer sworn in as Jersey Advocate The cost of living crisis and relationship breakdown One year on – The new creditors' winding up procedure in Jersey Rebecca Gueno qualifies as an English Solicitor Viberts Employment Law breakfast seminar 28 June 2023 - Employment in a changing world - 'Managing Change' How Lasting Powers of Attorney can help you plan for the future Viberts Associate Sara Brady has been shortlisted in the Jersey Finance 2023 Rising Stars Awards Legal update: changes to the Control of Housing & Work (Jersey) Law 2012 Update on toxic 'Forever Chemicals' polluting the Jersey water supply Legal Update: Zero Hour Contract Review Philip Livingstone joins Viberts Legal 500 Jersey Litigation Comparative Guide Giles Emmanuel adds STEP to his professional qualifications Case note: Royal Court decision on application for leave to apply for judicial review: Greechan v States Employment Board [2023] JRC116 Is Covid to blame for family breakdown? Or is it the cost of living crisis or both? Viberts discusses potential legal action of residents affected by PFAS in BBC documentary Reinstating your Jersey company, what you need to know What if Barbie and Ken lived in Jersey? A shocking discovery: potential prescription error compensation for rheumatology patients in Jersey Jessie Filipponi qualifies as an English Solicitor

Anti Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Handbook

Revised: May 2022


Partners - Partners of Viberts
Employee - All personnel employed by Viberts and any associated company.
MLCO - The Money Laundering Compliance Officer.
MLRO - The Money Laundering Reporting Officer.
MLO - The Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008.
JFSC or the Commission - The Jersey Financial Services Commission.
JFCU - The Joint Financial Crimes Unit.
AML - Anti-Money Laundering.
CFT - Countering the Financing of Terrorism.
AML Handbook - The Handbook for the prevention and detection of money laundering and the countering of terrorist financing, as published from time to time by the JFSC.
BRA - Business Risk Assessment.
CDD or DD - Client Due Diligence.
ID - Customer Identification.
PEP - Politically Exposed Person.
SAR - Suspicious Activity Report.
C6 Intelligence - Online database detailing PEPs, sanctions imposed on individuals, and adverse publicity information.
Reliance - Acting upon another's statement of alleged fact, i.e. previous DD checks carried out on a client with referral of business.
ALB - Advanced Legal Business – Viberts’ Practice Management System.



1. Introduction, risk appetite and policy
2. Purpose and scope
3. Corporate governance
4. Risk-based approach
5. Client due diligence (CDD requirements)
6. Reporting/disclosures
7. Records, reliance, reviews
8. Systems, controls, training and awareness
9. Policies and procedures
10. Appendices



1.1 This handbook sets out our procedures for countering money laundering and terrorist funding activity. Failure to discharge our obligations could result in the following actions being taken against the firm, the partners or employees:

  • Criminal: disciplinary procedures imposed by the Royal Court by way of prosecution for criminal offences.
  • Civil: possible claims for damages by our clients, or by others who have been compromised by our actions.
  • Reputational: negative publicity arising from any of the above actions could result in significant damage to the firm and individual’s professional integrity, regardless of the outcome.

1.2 The firm has a default low risk appetite although higher risk matters may be accepted subject to consideration by partners and/or the Risk Committee and appropriate mitigations being in place, resulting in an overall risk appetite of low to medium. Any clients or matters assessed as being higher than low risk must be referred to the Head of Risk and Compliance for direction on the approach to be taken and required approvals.

1.3 It follows that the partners are determined to minimise the danger of exposure to all such sanctions, both for themselves and all employees as well as protecting the Island’s reputation of probity. As a professional practice the firm is particularly attractive to criminals wishing to convert illegal funds to a respectable status. As such, we have a significant role to play in ensuring that our services are not used to further a criminal purpose, and to act with integrity to uphold the law. Our approach to this area is risk based and our policies and procedures are designed to ensure that we comply with all applicable legislation and in so doing protect our firm, partners and employees from the risks identified above.



The objective of this handbook is as follows:

  • To outline the requirements of the money laundering legislation applicable to our business.
  • To create good practice for implementing the legal requirements to prevent us from being used to facilitate money laundering and terrorist financing;
  • To provide direction on applying the risk-based approach effectively within our business.
  • To provide practical guidance on customer due diligence, including identification and verification of identity.
  • To provide an information resource for all employees in training and awareness of money laundering and terrorist financing.
  • To outline the responsibilities of all employees in adhering to the policy and procedures set for our business.



The Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) and Money Laundering Compliance Officer (MLCO).

3.1 Our statutory obligations within the MLO dictate that we are required to:

  • Appoint Money Laundering Compliance and Reporting Officers (MLCO and MLRO).
  • Adopt reporting and control procedures.
  • Screen new employees for their suitability given our responsibilities in this regard.
  • Regularly train all employees.
  • Undertake identity checking with clients and collect other relevant information.
  • Update and maintain records for future information.

3.2 The AML/CFT Codes of Practice contained within the JFSC’s AML Handbook require the Partners to conduct and record a business risk assessment. This is facilitated on an annual basis by the Head of Risk and Compliance and will be shared with the JFSC upon their request. Additionally the BRA, or extract of the BRA will be shared with employees from time to time. Amongst other things, the BRA will assess:

  • The risks posed to the firm by money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
  • Organisational factors that may increase exposure to the risk of money laundering and terrorism.
  • The nature, scale and complexity of the firm’s services and the degree of risk associated with these.
  • Additional risks which may be posed by the countries with which the firm’s clients are associated.
  • Who the firm’s clients are and what they do.
  • The use of Client accounts.
  • The firm’s exposure to cash transactions.
  • Sources of client’s funds.
  • Risks associated by the administration of estates.
  • Risks associated with property transactions and conveyancing services undertaken by the firm.
  • Risks associated with the commercial work undertaken by the firm.
  • risks arising from cultural factors.

The Head of Risk and Compliance will ensure that a review of the BRA is undertaken if material changes to the services offered or the firm’s exposure to money laundering and terrorist funding occur between the annual reviews.

3.3 The partners have determined that all work conducted by the firm should be regarded as being covered by the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008. In this regard, the following individuals have been appointed in compliance with the regulations:

3.4 Advocate Charles Thacker is the MLRO.
His reporting duties in this regard are to:

  • Receive reports of, and provide advice for, suspicious circumstances when consulted.
  • Determine whether or not legal privilege applies to any suspicious activity raised by employees.
  • Report such circumstances, if appropriate, to the JFCU on behalf of the firm.
  • Direct employees in any action to be taken, if necessary, when suspicion arises, and a report is made.
  • Be fully aware of both his and the firm's obligations under the money laundering legislation and the MLO.
  • Ensure that relationships are managed effectively post disclosure to avoid tipping-off any third parties.
  • Act as the liaison point with the Commission and the JFCU and in any other third-party enquiries in relation to money laundering or terrorist financing.
  • Maintain records of all internal and external suspicious activity.

NB. In the event of Advocate Charles Thacker being unavailable his deputy is Advocate Rose Colley.

3.5 Jonathan Reynolds is the MLCO.
His compliance duties in this regard are to:

  • Ensure that satisfactory internal procedures are maintained and that the business takes sufficiently
    robust measures to protect itself against the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.
  • Arrange for periodic training for all employees within the firm.
  • Monitor the application of our AML and CFT processes and improve them where necessary.
  • Maintain the AML/CFT Handbook and ensure that all employees are aware of its contents and their
    responsibilities within the business.
  • Maintain a list of organisations that have been approved to pass work to us under reliance
    arrangements, whereby we can rely on their CDD checks previously undertaken.
  • Monitor, review and maintain a register of instances where exceptions to policies and procedures or
    controls are approved.

3.6 Employee Responsibilities - It is the duty of all employees within the firm to:

  • Attend regular training arranged within the firm if required to do so.
    (NB. There is a dual responsibility for both the MLRO/MLCO and the employee to ensure that this training is completed regularly in order that we comply with statutory regulations)
  • Conduct identity checks on all new clients through the use of the appropriate ID forms, including checking for beneficial ownership, politically exposed persons (PEPs) and control and management structures, unless the head of department or the MLCO dictates otherwise.
  • Conduct ongoing client identity checks in relation to additional cases or business acquisitions where further CDD is necessary.
  • Report without delay all circumstances which could give rise to suspicion that the firm risks becoming, or is involved in, some element of the money laundering process.
  • Be diligent with unusual or unexplained activity which includes deposits of cash into a client’s account.
  • Follow the directions of the MLRO when a report has been made, maintaining awareness of the personal risk to the adviser of ‘tipping off’ the client either expressly or by implication.
  • Maintain the utmost caution in maintaining confidentiality for the client and the firm when suspicious circumstances arise.



4.1 As a business, our ongoing aim is to promote a risk-aware culture and to provide the necessary education for our employees to adopt and practice our policies in their day-to-day business. This is achievable by setting the following standards in place:

  • Robust measures around systems and controls.
  • Regular assessments of our ongoing business to conduct gap analysis for service improvement
    around our key risk areas.
  • Regular training for all employees to create ongoing awareness and diligence in matters of money laundering and terrorist activity.

4.2 Cash Receipts - A client who pays in cash or wishes to do so is not in itself a cause for suspicion. Nonetheless, the larger the intended cash payment, the more likely it is that money laundering or terrorist activity should be suspected. Substantial amounts of cash are often the result of criminal activity, or business receipts where there has been a failure to declare income to the tax authorities. In this case, the client’s action would amount to criminal conduct under the money-laundering laws. Consequently the firm does not accept cash receipts in the normal course of business. Any cash receipts must have the approval of the Practice Director and the MLCO, who will maintain a record of exceptions granted.



5.1 When taking instructions, the appropriate checklist must be completed and stored on the file for future reference. The choice of form depends on the departmental risk assessment and the particular instructions received. The flow-charts included (Appendix 1) are a visual guide to assist you.

The CDD forms are appended at the end of this handbook and are categorised as follows:

  • Form ID1A (Appendix 2); private individuals – all risk levels.
    • To assist in requesting individual CDD, a client CDD guide can be located at Appendix 12.
  • Form ID1B (Appendix 3); regulated and non-regulated companies.
  • Form ID1C (Appendix 4); enhanced due diligence.
    • If the client presents as being high risk, please also complete the High Risk Individual checklist
      (Appendix 6).
  • Form ID1E (Appendix 7); Trusts or Trustees – all risk levels.
  • Form ID1F (Appendix 8); Partnerships – all risk levels.
  • Form ID1G (Appendix 9); Foundations – all risk levels.
  • Form ID1H (Appendix 10); Charities – as beneficiaries of an Estate only.

5.2 Fee Earners must obtain evidence of a new client’s identity as soon as possible after contact is first established, and in all cases before any transaction is effected on the client’s behalf, including the return of monies deposited or forwarded to us by, or for, them.

5.3 Further identification measures may be required where there is suspicion of money laundering or financing of terrorism. The MLRO will provide further guidance if this becomes appropriate.

5.4 The evidencing of an identity check must be undertaken by completion of the appropriate ID form, a copy of which must be approved by the fee earner, partner and where appropriate the MLCO and appear on the first matter file of the client in question.

NB. There is a distinction between ‘identification’ (being told or coming to know a client’s identifying details) and ‘verification’ (obtaining some evidence which supports this claim of identity). Customer Due Diligence’ (‘CDD’) requires both elements to be addressed and this must be done before we effect any transaction for the client.

Exceptions to these requirements can only be sanctioned by the MLCO.

5.4 The standard requirement for individuals is one item of photographic ID (passport or driving licence) and one item of evidence of address (utility bill or bank statement, but not a mobile phone bill). For clients who cannot produce such documents, such as residents in care homes, please consult the MLCO. In these circumstances you should gather what evidence you can and seek an independent certification from other professionals e.g. a general practitioner, who may be able to provide this.

N.B. We cannot accept passports which have expired, and all utility bills produced must be no more than three months old. Utility bills must relate to a service delivered to the address being verified. Mobile phone bills may not be used for verification of address purposes.

If we are unable to complete our CDD requirement at take-on or during the period of our relationship with the client, we may need to decline or terminate the relationship. The MLRO and/or the Head of Risk and Compliance will advise where this becomes necessary.

The following checklists are appended at the end of this handbook to assist in gathering CDD for individuals:

  • Form ID1A (Appendix 1); private individuals – all risk levels.
    • Must be completed for all individual clients.
  • Form ID1C (Appendix 3); enhanced due diligence.
    • Must be completed for all clients not met by a staff member, not a resident of Jersey or are in any way higher risk.
  • High Risk Individual checklist (Appendix 5).
    • Must be completed for high risk individuals and submitted to MLCO before formally accepting the client.

5.5 Whenever dealing with established clients it is also important to exercise diligence when considering whether any subsequent instructions are consistent with the client’s usual activity. Be particularly wary of any former criminal client where acquisitive crime has been an issue. If in any doubt, raise your suspicions with the MLRO using the standard reporting guidelines.

5.6 The partners recognise that many clients may resist the request for evidence of identity, but clients should be reassured that this is now standard practice for any financial or professional services business. Viberts engagement letter now reflects the need for identity to be checked, and this wording might also assist to reassure clients that our actions are not taken because of a reason for mistrust.

5.7 Where a client is not an individual, it is also necessary to identify and obtain evidence of the individuals who are the beneficial owners of and controllers of the client. These may differ depending on the structure of the clients however they will include shareholders with over 25% of the shares, partners with over 25% of voting rights or beneficiaries of a trust with an interest in at least 25% of the capital. For trusts, we must also identify and obtain evidence of the settlors and if relevant, the protector.

Where no individual holds a material ownership interest, individuals who control the client through other means will need to be identified and evidence obtained. This would for example include Directors of a company where no material shareholder exists.

The following checklists are appended at the end of this handbook to assist in gathering CDD for such clients:

  • Form ID1B (Appendix 3); regulated and non-regulated companies.
  • Form ID1E (Appendix 7); Trusts or Trustees – all risk levels.
  • Form ID1F (Appendix 8); Partnerships – all risk levels.
  • Form ID1G (Appendix 9); Foundations – all risk levels.
  • Form ID1H (Appendix 10); Charities – as beneficiaries of an Estate only.

5.8 If in doubt as to what evidence needs to be collected on beneficial owners or control and management structures please consult your Head of Department or MLCO.

5.9 In the case of conveyance matters we must have details of all funders such as family members assisting the client. We also need to know the sources of receipts that we are to expect. In all matters where we are receiving significant funds, the Source of Funds form (Appendix 16) must be completed.

5.10 Where you are acting for an agent or nominee (i.e. the beneficiary of our services is a third party) you should be vigilant to know the reasons for the principal not instructing you directly. You must take the following into account in when dealing with such cases:

  • Why you are being instructed through an agent.
  • How well you know your client.
  • Whether your client is a regulated person.
  • The type of business structure involved in the transaction and why it is being used.
  • Where the business structure is based and the extent of regulatory provisions if abroaD.
  • How soon property or funds will pass to the principal(s).

NB: Full identification and verification procedures apply to both the underlying principal (third party) and
the agents, nominees or those acting under a power of attorney.

5.11 Fee Earners must recognise the importance of insisting on such information from clients who might sometimes be reluctant to discuss what they regard as private control and ownership structures. If our file later comes under scrutiny and fails to record sufficient details of beneficial interests and/or control structures, we will be in breach of the MLO and therefore open to the risks outlined in the introduction to this document.

5.12 In certain circumstances we are not required to collect ID evidence under the provisions in the MLO, but in other circumstances we are required to do more checking than usual. Specifically, no ID checking is required in relation to:

  • Beneficial ownership for listed public companies, although we need to provide evidence of that listing and record the details on form ID1B e.g. evidence of listing on a specific stock exchange (see Article 18(4) of the MLO).
  • Any Jersey public authority or its beneficial owners (Article 18(4) of the MLO).
  • Any client who is seeking, directly or indirectly, to enter into a registered contract within the meaning
    of the Housing (Jersey) Law 1949 i.e. where it is to be passed before the Royal Court and registered in the Public Registry of Contracts. Viberts must obtain and retain documentation establishing that the applicant for business is entitled to benefit from the concession in Article 18 (8A) of the MLO. By policy, this exemption is not used by the firm; and
  • Acting as principal or on behalf of third parties, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant for business is a regulated person, or a person carrying on equivalent business to any category of regulated business (Article 18(7) of the MLO). A person or business which is regulated means that they are recognised as a professional person or body to conduct business under the JFSC regulations. The JFSC website provides details of all currently regulated businesses.
  • Matters where the advice given does not fall under the definitions of Schedule 2, no funds will be received into our client account, the client is not assessed as high risk and there is no suspicion of
    money laundering. This only applies to Employment advice and non-Sch 2 Corporate advice subject to documentation noting the reasoning for the matter being non-Sch 2 in accordance with departmental procedures. Otherwise this exemption may only be used having completed form ID1I (Appendix 11) and with prior approval of the MLCO, who will note the exception.
  • Matters where the provisions in Article 16 and 17 may be applied. These provisions only apply to Sch 2 Corporate advice and may only be used having completed form ID1J (Appendix 12) and with prior approval of the MLCO.

5.13 In all such cases the Fee Earner must record evidence that the client meets the requirements of one of the above exemptions on the file, such as a printout of a relevant website, or a listing of public companies.

5.14 There are three main situations where we need to undertake enhanced checking:

  • Clients assessed as medium or higher risk (including clients with an association to a high-risk country or business activities related to the sale of oil or arms);
  • clients we do not meet in person; and
  • PEPs.

In these cases, enhanced steps are required and Form ID1C must be used in addition to Form ID1A.

5.15 In addition, for clients who may potentially be a PEP, have a connection to a high-risk country, have business activities related to the sale of oil or transactions which we consider to present a higher of money laundering of financing of terrorism, we must undertake additional on-line searches using C6 Intelligence. This details coverage from various intelligence agencies including PEPs, money launderers, fraudsters, terrorists and sanctioned entities plus individuals and businesses from over a dozen other
high-risk categories. Where the nature of the prospective client’s instructions suggests possible overseas connections, this database must be fully checked out to establish whether any international sanctions are in force concerning the country, organisation or individuals associated with the prospective client. In the event of any possible association, the MLCO must be informed and written approval sought from the MLRO before the prospective client’s instructions are accepted.

To assist the Fee Earner in gathering the relevant information for submission to the MLCO, the High Risk Individual Checklist can be located at Appendix 6. In the case of PEPs, the enhanced requirements in paragraph 5.17 below must be complied with before the client is accepted, and this includes the investigation of source of wealth. The Enhanced Due Diligence form (Appendix 4) must be completed and MLRO approval given.

5.16 A politically exposed person (PEP) is defined by Article 15A(3) of the MLO as someone who is or has been ‘entrusted with a prominent public function’, whether in Jersey or in another country or territory outside Jersey and includes family members and close associates. Within Jersey, this includes prominent individuals, such as the Lieutenant-Governor, Ministers (but not necessarily deputy Ministers), Chief Executive of the Government of Jersey, Director-Generals of the Government of Jersey, the Attorney General, the Solicitor-General, Commissioners of the Jersey Financial Services Commission, the Director General of the Jersey Financial Services Commission, the Registrar of Companies, the Information Commissioner, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Bailiff, the Deputy Bailiff, the Judicial Greffier, the Comptroller of Taxes, HM Receiver General and Senior Executives of State Owned Body Corporates (or similar).

In countries and territories outside Jersey it will include heads of state, heads of government, senior politicians, senior government, judicial or military officials, senior executives of state owned corporations, important political party officials. This would include for example Westminster MPs within the UK.

5.17 Where you think that you might be dealing with a PEP, you must:

  • Have approval from the MLCO before opening that matter;
  • take adequate measures to establish the source of wealth or funds that are involved and in most cases this can be obtained by asking the client for this information although we must be sure we are satisfied with the responses, obtain evidence to support the information provided and consider if they are consistent with the information disclosed by the C6 search; and
  • conduct ongoing monitoring of any business relationship formed with such an individual and continue to investigate the nature of any subsequent instructions.

See also: Politically Exposed Person (PEP) policy (VML0010).

5.18 It is not a requirement that you conduct ID checking at any free or initial advice sessions unless you have reason to suspect that the enquiry does involve money-laundering issues. In these circumstances you must subject the enquirer to the normal procedures outlined in form ID1A as a pre-condition of providing any advice, whether that advice is provided at the session or subsequently in writing. This exception does not apply however, if you suspect that the enquiry relates to prohibited activities under the money laundering, drug trafficking or terrorism laws, or if you doubt the identity or information that the enquirer has provided.

5.19 No transaction may be conducted on behalf of a client until we have completed the process of establishing CDD. You are encouraged, where appropriate, to ask your client to bring the necessary ID evidence with them to your first meeting. If they fail to do so, or if you feel that this would be inappropriate, you must ensure that the process is complete as soon as practicable after the initial contact. The firm’s standard practice is that there must be no receipt of funds into the client account until the CDD client identification processes have been completed.

5.20 It is a requirement of the MLO that we do not continue to act for a client who fails to produce the evidence requested and that we consider whether we need to make a disclosure to the JFCU on the basis of their reluctance to comply with our requests. The completion of a SAR form (Appendix 14) might be necessary in such cases.

5.21 Under the MLO ongoing monitoring is required. Our approach to this requirement is that:

  • We ask all established clients to re-complete the full CDD process if it is longer than three years since that client instructed us, unless a partner is content to certify that that client is well known to them (in which case this must be certified on the risk assessment form - ID1D – Appendix 5).
  • Evidence of address (by an on-line check or certifying a copy of a utility bill or bank statement, but not a mobile phone statement) should usually be refreshed and placed on file where there is any doubt as to the client’s up to date details.
  • We should in all cases consider if the current activity and instructions are in the profile of the client that we have from previous dealings or are notable transactions i.e:
    • Inconsistent with the firm’s knowledge of the client.
    • Are complex or unusually large.
    • Form part of an unusual pattern.
    • Last minute changes in instructions or for source of remittances.
    • Instructions cancelled after receipt of funds.
    • Present a higher risk of money laundering or financing of terrorism.
  • We should in all cases consider whether we are compromised by having dealings in relation to any acquisitive crime by or involving that client; and we should in all cases consider if the country or territory connected to the client or transaction is and enhanced risk state or is subject to measures or sanctions connected to the prevention of money laundering or financing or terrorism.



6.1 Whenever you consider that a disclosure might be required you may speak to the MLRO without delay and discuss your concerns. A formal report of suspicious circumstances must always be made by use of the attached SAR report form (Appendix 14). You should note that you would only acquire a defence to a non-disclosure offence if you make a formal disclosure by use of this form. Failure to raise a SAR as soon as possible represents a disciplinary event and may also be liable under the regulatory laws to imprisonment or a fine or both.

6.2 The warning signs that can often lead to disclosures being required include the following:

  • The client is overly secretive or evasive about who they are, where their money is coming from or
    the nature of their business or transaction.
  • The client, their representatives or beneficial owners are native to or situated in a high-risk country.
  • The client is involved in transactions which do not correspond to their normal personal or business
  • The client asks repeated questions about AML procedures.
  • Litigation is settled too easily or quickly with little or no involvement by the legal professional retained.
  • The source of funds is unusual (e.g. large cash payments, third party funding with no apparent connection, or unexplained use of multiple or foreign bank accounts).
  • Instruction of a legal professional at a distance from the client or transaction without legitimate reason or without experience in the particular specialty.
  • Use of complicated ownership structures when there is no legitimate reason.
  • Unexplained pressure for expediency or changes in instructions, especially at the last minute.
  • Payments to third parties without substantiating reason for the corresponding transactions.

6.3 Wherever information or a matter in which knowledge or suspicion arise in the course of employment with Viberts, a suspicious activity report must be raised as soon as possible, irrespective of the underlying nature of the business that is being undertaken or even if the (potential) client and/or matter hasn’t been taken on or declined and irrespective of the amount involved in the transaction or relationship.

6.4 It is possible that Legal Professional Privilege may apply to the information which has given rise to the concern that suspicious activity has taken place. LPP is a complex area, particularly when interacting with the provision of the Money Laundering legislation and you should never assume that it will apply to any and all information you receive from your clients. If you have any reason to be suspicious, you should report the activity to the MLRO as normal as this is not a breach of privilege. The MLRO will then consider LPP in deciding whether a disclosure should be made to the JFCU.

6.5 On receipt of a duly completed Report form the MLRO will:

  • Consider the form and make such further enquiries as are necessary to determine whether a report to the JFCU or elsewhere is needed;
  • ensure that any action taken by us could not result in alerting the client that a report and investigation could ensue;
  • make a disclosure to the JFCU, if appropriate, providing full details of the reasons for doing so;
  • make diary notes in our key dates system as to when we may continue to take further action and the MLRO will direct the discloser further as appropriate;
  • co-operate with any production orders made by the proper authorities; and
  • consider whether the intended subject of a disclosure needs to be consulted about the planned disclosure so that we may obtain permission to use the privileged information.

Following the submission of a SAR, the MLRO must be advised of any further information relating to the suspicion which may come to our knowledge.

6.6 ‘Tipping Off’ - In certain circumstances Fee Earners may or must report to the client that a disclosure will be made. Because the precise legal position on this point is made more complex by the issue of privilege, our policy is as follows:

  • Clients should be made aware in the engagement process that it is the duty of all law firms to disclose to the authorities their knowledge or suspicions of criminal activity and you are authorised to remind clients of this element of our terms of engagement.
  • In circumstances where any client request may be suspected to be an arrangement to avoid this policy and consequently a cause for suspicion, you must report such incidences to the MLRO who will consider the threshold of suspicion at this point and whether a report should be raised.
  • You are not as an individual authorised to inform the client of a disclosure to the JFSC by the MLRO, nor to inform the client of any suspicion you may have of a potentially reportable circumstance as above described, nor of any of the process set out in the preceding paragraphs to deal with such a suspicion. Should it be necessary to give such information to the client, that will only be done on the instruction of the MLRO. To give information to the client which would or might alert them to the fact that they are under investigation would be ”tipping off”, which is a criminal offence; and
  • If the client is already involved in any criminal activity, you must consult the MLRO for the appropriate level of action to take.
  • It should be noted that the asking of questions relating to CDD and source of funds and wealth, such that we would ordinarily ask or require satisfaction of, would not normally constitute “tipping off” unless the particular circumstances mean this could occur. The advice of the MLRO should be obtained if there are concerns in this area.

6.7 Do not store a completed report form on the matter file to which it relates. This would create a risk that the client might see the disclosure report, especially if the file is sent out of the office.

6.8 To alert all employees to the fact that a disclosure has been made, and that the firm may do no more work for the client until it has permission to proceed, you must relocate the file to the holding of the MLRO and annotate this action on ALB.



7.1 We are obliged to maintain records for at least five years of:

  • Evidence of identity and address (the completed ID form);
  • transactions completed (the matter file); and
  • any disclosures made (completed report forms).

In addition, we are required to maintain our ID evidence on the client until at least five years from the end of their business relationship with us, or the end of the last occasional transaction.

These records may be requested by the police or customs and may be examined by the JFSC at short notice and consequently risk assessment and CDD documentation including source of funds and source or wealth information must be kept separately within matter files to aid their prompt extraction and also as most other information will not be disclosable.

7.2 Sometimes you will be asked to certify the ID of a client in relation to investments or work that they are undertaking elsewhere. You will also, on occasion, be asked to certify documents that might be relied upon elsewhere for another organisation in the regulated sector to undertake its CDD checks. All fee earners are authorised to do so, though it is envisaged that this would usually be a service provided to
existing clients or other personal or professional contacts of the firm. You must not, however, agree to undertake CDD for another concern by way of ‘reliance’, in which case you assume their responsibility for the checking that they are required to do. The one exception to this principle is that you are permitted to certify to counsel that we have undertaken CDD on a client that has been referred to them, but only if we do hold such evidence on file.

7.3 To monitor compliance with these procedures, the MLCO will make arrangements for periodic file reviews.



8.1 The JFSC have requested that all Viberts employees be advised of the following requirements of the partners:

  • They must establish and maintain systems and controls to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing that enable us to monitor and review instances where exceptions are granted to policies and procedures or where controls are overridden and the MLCO will maintain a written
    record of such exceptions.
  • They must notify the JFSC immediately in writing of any material failures to comply with the requirements of the MLO or the AML Handbook. The MLCO will be responsible for fulfilling this requirement. If any employee becomes aware of any such failure, they have a duty to report this to the MLCO).
  • They must demonstrate the provision of training at appropriate frequencies by providing all employees with induction training within 10 working days of their commencing employment.
  • They must deliver training to all employees at least once every two years, and otherwise determine the frequency of training for relevant employees on the basis of risk, with more frequent training where appropriate.

8.2 The MLCO is required to ensure compliance training arrangements are in place for all employees. If any employee considers this is not being done, please report this to the MLRO.