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
Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial.   The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance
13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
25 Jun 2026

CIMA Enforcement Action in Focus: Reminders and Recommendations

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has recently published a number of Enforcement Notices that provide helpful context for regulated entities, including Licensees and Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA), seeking to understand and meet their ongoing regulatory obligations in the Cayman Islands. In early June 2026, CIMA exercised its enforcement powers under SIBA Section 17 to cancel the registrations of several SIBA Registered Persons on the basis that it had reasonable grounds to believe that such Registered Persons had failed to meet certain key regulatory obligations. The Appleby Team takes this opportunity to review the relevant findings and CIMA enforcement action; and to highlight certain key obligations that attach to regulated entities in the Cayman Islands.