Premier André Ebanks defended Cayman’s position on beneficial ownership amid mounting UK pressure during a 5 Feb. appearance on Compass TV’s Forefront.
In recent months UK politicians have increased calls for Cayman to adopt a fully-open register of beneficial ownership. For example, on 4 Feb. a current peer and former high-ranking civil servant, Simon McDonald, told the House of Lords that Cayman’s financial sector could pose a risk to the UK.
“Financial services are very, very important to many of the territories, and the way they’re run in the territories seems to be not particularly transparent,” McDonald told the Constitutional Committee of the House of Lords. “And there I think we should get hot and heavy, because it is the UK’s reputation on the line if things go wrong in the Virgin Islands or Cayman or Bermuda,” said McDonald in comments that were reported in Bermuda’s Royal Gazette.
Premier Ebanks acknowledged that this UK pressure was a “long-standing issue”, noting as well: “our position remains the same […] that isn’t changing”.
Ebanks said that while the government is prepared to amend beneficial ownership regulation to ensure that it operates efficiently for legitimate access, it would not fully open the register to a “Google search type system”.
Constitutional crisis
Ebanks raised two key points in defence of Cayman. The first was that a fully-open register of beneficial ownership would likely be illegal under Cayman’s constitution.
He cited the November 2022 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ruled that Luxembourg’s moved to a fully open public register would interfere with individuals’ fundamental right to privacy.
“Our constitution and bill of rights are modelled on the European convention of Human Rights”, said Ebanks. “We have advice from eminent constitutional council that the judgment would more than likely be the same in Cayman.”
“Even if there are a subset of MPs in the UK who advocate for a particular position – that is their right, that is their Parliament – our job is to focus on the Cayman Islands and its constitution,” said Ebanks. Moreover, the premier made it clear that this position had been reiterated to the UK Minister of State for the Overseas Territories Stephen Doughty.
The other reason that Cayman won’t adopt a fully open register, said Ebanks, is that it already has world-class beneficial ownership legislation. “The legitimate interest register that we have now is already ahead of FATF standard,” said Ebanks.
The premier noted that Cayman’s focus should be on the Financial Action Task Force evaluation coming in 2027, rather than changing regulation which already meets global best practice.
“We are moving along to the global standards,” said Ebanks. “That’s what we can do – we can’t go to the whims of different standards that aren’t in keeping with our constitution.”
Related Videos
The UK Labour government is very happy to NOT return economic illegal immigrants because they claim the ECHR doesn’t allow it. Instead they cost the British taxpayers billions a year.
However fully prepared to ignore the rulings of the European convention of Human Rights when they want to destroy our financial services industry; just as they are busy destroying the UK economy with high taxes.
Fun fact: Electricity in the UK is 24.4p per KwH. = 27 KYD cents.
By comparison: Electricity in Grand Cayman = 30 KYD cents.
There is zero reason why joe shmo from the public should have any right to see who beneficial owners are. The “legitimate interest” test is more than sufficient to ensure law enforcement / tax authorities / judgment creditors can get the access needed to ensure legal compliance. And remember the USA does not have public beneficial owner registry – the largest economy in the world. The UK is going way too far and way beyond the balance of public need vs individual rights to privacy.
That is correct Premier Andre! Enough is Enough….push back on them for sure! Assemble your colleagues in the other OT’s, and pursue a class-action lawsuit against them or seek the Leave of the Court for a Judicial Review on this bullying which is being championed by some ill-informed policy makers in Whitehall.