Cayman Islands’ Anti-Money Laundering regime updated

Published: 1 Mar 2018
Type: Insight

The Cayman Islands has demonstrated its commitment to highest international regulatory standards by updating a number of laws to implement the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on the prevention of money laundering (anti-money laundering, or AML) and the countering of terrorist financing (CTF).


The updated AML/CTF regime includes the Proceeds of Crime Law, as amended, (2017 Revision) (POCL), the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations, 2017, as amended, (AML Regulations), the Terrorism Law (2017 Revision), as amended, and the Guidance Notes on the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in the Cayman Islands dated December 2017 (Guidance Notes). The Guidance Notes provide practical guidelines that represent best practice for the development of AML/CTF procedures in line with international standards.

Key Changes under anti-money laundering Regulations

  1. Relevant Financial Business

The scope of the AML/CTF regime is defined by reference to “relevant financial business”. This continues to be the case, however, the term is now defined by reference to the POCL instead of the AML Regulations, with the definition of “relevant financial business” now including: (i) “Otherwise investing, administering or managing funds or money on behalf of other persons” and (ii) “Underwriting and placement of life insurance and other investment related insurance”. While the expanded definition continues to cover the traditional financial service providers such as regulated mutual funds, trusts business and banking business, it now brings unregulated investment entities (specifically, private equity funds), insurance entities and finance vehicles such as CLOs within the scope of the AML Regulations.

  1. Additional Obligations

The requirements relating to maintaining client identification and verification procedures, reporting of suspicious activity, internal control procedures, staff training, appointing a Money Laundering Reporting Officer and Compliance Officer (now termed Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer) remain under the AML Regulations. However, the AML Regulations introduce the following additional requirements:

  • designating a Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officer;
  • screening employees when hiring to ensure high standards;
  • adopting a risk-based approach (see below); and
  • checking against all applicable sanctions lists and observing the list of countries, published by any competent authority, which are non-compliant, or do not sufficiently comply with the FATF recommendations.
  1. Risk-Based Approach

The AML Regulations introduce a risk-based approach, including the requirement that a person carrying out relevant financial business conduct a business risk assessment of products, services, transactions, delivery channels or new or developing technology risks to identify, assess, and understand its money laundering and terrorist financing risks in relation to its customers and the country or geographic area in which the customer resides or operates. Risk assessments must be documented, monitored and kept current and must also incorporate policies and procedures approved by senior management which enable such person to manage and mitigate any risks identified.

The risk-based approach leads to simplified or enhanced customer due diligence (CDD) procedures being applicable depending on whether lower or higher risks, respectively, are identified.

  1. Simplified Due Diligence

On the application of a business risk assessment, where a customer relationship has been assessed as lower risk, persons conducting relevant financial business are permitted to apply simplified CDD procedures. Lower risk customers are required to be identified, but verification documents are not necessary.

Any assessment of lower risk by a financial service provider has to be consistent with the findings of the Anti-Money Laundering Steering Committee (being a body created under the POCL) or any other supervisory authority.

The types of customers to which simplified CDD may be applied include the following:

  • Cayman Islands entities that are financial service providers and subject to the AML Regulations;
  • government organisations, statutory bodies or government agencies of foreign countries and territories which are recognised by the Cayman Islands as having an equivalent AML/CTF regime (Approved Countries);
  • entities which are regulated in an Approved Country;
  • companies listed on a recognised stock exchange; and
  • customers introduced through an intermediary (Eligible Introducer), when such Eligible Introducer provides detailed written assurances with respect to CDD on the customers.

The commonly used exemption to CDD applicable to electronic payments (where a transaction is funded from a bank account in the name of the customer in an Approved Country) survives only partially under the AML Regulations. The AML Regulations now require basic customer details to be obtained upon receipt of payment, but verification of CDD to be obtained before onward payment.

  1. Enhanced Due Diligence

On the application of a business risk assessment, where a customer relationship has been assessed as higher risk, persons conducting relevant financial business are required to apply enhanced CDD procedures (i.e. beyond standard CDD).

Enhanced CDD must also be applied to politically exposed persons (PEPs) and their family members and close associates, or where a customer or an applicant for business is from a foreign country that has been identified by credible sources as having serious deficiencies in its AML/CTF regime or a prevalence of corruption.

Examples of enhanced CDD measures include, among other things, obtaining additional information on the customer, the intended nature of the business relationship and the source of funds and also updating such information more frequently.

  1. Beneficial Owners

The AML Regulations contain specific requirements to identify beneficial owners and legal arrangements and to apply a risk-based approach to conducting CDD on existing relationships.

  1. Approved Countries

The list of Approved Countries is no longer maintained as a schedule to the AML Regulations (previously referred to as Schedule 3), but is now approved by the Anti-Money Laundering Steering Committee and can therefore be amended without the need to pass formal legislation.

  1. Increase in AML Penalties

Any person who breaches the AML Regulations commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to CI$500,000 (a substantial increase from CI$5,000 under the previous regulations) or on conviction on indictment to a fine (which is unlimited) and imprisonment for two years.

In addition, the Monetary Authority (Amendment) Law, 2016 and the Monetary Authority (Administrative Fines) Regulations, 2017 give the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) the power to impose administrative fines for non-compliance with the AML Regulations. The fines range from CI$5,000 for minor breaches to CI$100,000 (for individuals) and CI$1,000,000 (for entities) for very serious breaches. Fines for ongoing minor breaches can be applied on a continuous basis up to a maximum of CI$20,000. CIMA will have six months from becoming aware of a minor breach to impose a fine. The time limit is two years for breaches described as serious or very serious.

At first glance, the updated AML/CTF regime may cause one to think that the entire regime has been overhauled, however, this is not the case. Many of the changes, although now codified in the Cayman Islands, are not really new per se. The market trend in recent years has been to adopt a risk-based approach, apply enhanced CDD when appropriate, apply AML/CTF procedures to unregulated funds (even though they were out of scope) and conduct CDD on beneficial owners. In addition, a regulated investment fund continues to be able to comply with its AML/CTF obligations by delegation to and reliance on a suitable party (including the Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer, the Money Laundering Reporting Officer and the Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officer). Therefore, many entities conducting relevant financial business will already be compliant with the AML Regulations.

Next Steps

Although changes may not be necessary, we would recommend that current AML/CTF policies and procedures or any delegation/reliance arrangements be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the new requirements.

Entities that are newly subject to the AML Regulations have until 31 May 2018 to implement appropriate AML procedures or to implement a delegation/reliance arrangement. There is no sector- specific guidance in the Guidance Notes for some businesses now caught by the AML Regulations, including unregulated investment funds and structured finance vehicles, but such guidance is currently being developed by CIMA and will be published in due course.

Share
More publications
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases.  The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).