Gatekeepers in Focus: From CARA to LSSA - Cayman’s New AML Supervisor for Lawyers

Published: 27 May 2026

Anti-money laundering, countering the financing of terrorism, and counter-proliferation financing (AML) expectations and requirements for professional advisers continue to develop globally, and the Cayman Islands has established a new dedicated AML Supervisory Authority for its legal services sector — the Legal Services Supervisory Authority (LSSA).

Responsibility for AML supervision of attorneys-at-law now rests with the Cayman Islands Legal Services Council, which has delegated operational supervision to the LSSA.

AML obligations for lawyers in Cayman are not new. Legal professionals were previously supervised through the Cayman Attorneys Regulatory Authority (CARA). The LSSA, however, represents a more specialised, risk-focused model tailored to legal practice. For trust and estate practitioners, this signals a shift in how AML risk in legal services will be assessed and overseen.


Why the change?

International standards, particularly the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), recognise the key role legal professionals play in structuring and facilitating the movement of wealth. Trust formation, estate planning, corporate structuring and cross-border asset transfers all intersect with potential money laundering risk. Cayman is scheduled to begin its next Caribbean FATF (CFATF) mutual evaluation in 2027.

While CARA oversaw a robust AML regime for legal services in Cayman, the LSSA has been created to ensure consistent oversight across the legal sector whilst recognising its distinctive features including — confidentiality, fiduciary duties, a client’s right to legal advice and lawyers’ involvement in complex private structures.

What does the LSSA supervise?.

Lawyers conducting or assisting other persons in the planning or execution of relevant financial business, as defined in Schedule 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act in or from within the Cayman Islands, must now register with the LSSA.

The scope of the applicable AML regime is activity-based and includes legal services involving:

  • establishment and administration of trusts and fiduciary structures
  • incorporations and formation of legal entities
  • cross-border estate and succession planning
  • handling client funds
  • structuring corporate or investment vehicles

Applicable AML obligations in a given instance will therefore depend on the work performed, not simply professional status.

What are the considerations for STEP members?

For STEP members, AML supervision of legal practice in Cayman is expected to reflect a more tailored and risk-focused approach to the types of work common in trust and estate practices — particularly high-net-worth families and/or cross-border assets and layered structures.

This in turn raises expectations around how money-laundering and terrorist / proliferation financing risks should be identified, assessed, managed and documented, not only at onboarding but in also terms of ongoing monitoring throughout the client relationship.

What does it mean in practice?

Law firms and sole practitioners must register with the LSSA; a failure to register may lead to administrative fines.

The other practical impacts are however expected to be less about new rules and more about evidencing AML compliance – with key duties of the LSSA being to maintain a register of all law firms and sole practitioners, monitor such law firms and sole practitioners by adopting a risk-based approach to supervision, and taking necessary measures (including, where needed, enforcement measures) to ensure AML compliance. In this respect:

  •  Client due diligence will continue to require a clear understanding of clients, beneficial owners and sources of wealth. In trust matters, this will include the rationale for the trust and expected funding patterns.
  • Risk assessments will still need to be matter-specific. Establishing a multi-jurisdictional trust funded through corporate vehicles will require a documented justification of risk ratings and monitoring steps.
  • Ongoing monitoring will remain essential, with changes in assets, beneficiaries or jurisdictions prompting reassessment (and documentation of the same).
  •  Training and governance may well be inspected and scrutinised, including AML policies, procedures and related staff training materials. Smaller firms will be expected to maintain proportionate but effective controls.

A practical scenario

A STEP member restructuring a trust for a family office with assets in several jurisdictions, for example, would need to reassess the relevant structure’s purpose, understand all relevant asset flows and document how and why the revised arrangement aligns with the relevant client’s known profile – The emphasis being on the adoption and implementation of a genuinely risk-based approach rather than the mechanical completion of a checklist exercise.

What can STEP members take away?

The establishment of the LSSA reflects and reinforces a broader international trend: legal advisers involved in private wealth are seen as key gatekeepers in the AML system. For practitioners, the required responses will be practical:

  • embed documented risk assessment into everyday workflow
  • ensure CDD is supported by a clear understanding of source of wealth and/or source of funds for a specific transaction
  • maintain up-to-date AML policies and procedures and deliver regular AML training for staff
  • treat AML compliance as an ongoing process rather than an onboarding event

Ultimately, the establishment of the LSSA does not change the core role of trust and estate advisers in respect of AML. It does, however, underline that robust AML governance is an integral part of professional legal practice — and a visible one.

Read the Step Journal article here.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
26 May 2026

Transparency is a legal requirement under Pipa

Major companies across the European Union have faced substantial fines between 2019 and 2024, estimated at a total of €930 million (about $1.08 billion), not only for cyberattacks or data breaches, but also for issues such as noncompliant privacy notices. A common theme in many cases has been a lack of transparency.

Website-Code-BVI
25 May 2026

Back to Basics- Disputes Series

COMPELLING THE INNOCENT: NORWICH PHARMACAL RELIEF IN THE BVI Norwich Pharmacal relief can be a key, strategic tool to assist litigants with early-stage investigation where a BVI company is involved in “wrongdoing” that is the subject of ongoing or prospective litigation either in the BVI or abroad.  A Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order in the BVI is typically made against the registered agent of a “wrongdoer” BVI company, unbeknownst to the company itself, compelling the registered agent to provide information and documentation on the company’s directors, shareholders, ultimate beneficial owners and/or assets.  It is a flexible remedy but it typically enables an applicant party to obtain disclosure to identify the protagonists controlling the “wrongdoer” BVI company and details of its assets necessary in order to pursue their claim or to enforce and execute a judgment. Most frequently, relief is given in aid of foreign proceedings where it is needed to properly plead out a potential claim, to support eventual enforcement of a foreign judgment and/or to obtain or police an injunction.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
14 May 2026

Arbitrating shareholders’ disputes and beyond – the Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirms its non-interventionist and pro-arbitration stance

On 08 May 2026, the Mauritian Supreme Court, sitting as the panel of Designated Judges appointed under the International Arbitration Act 2008 (IAA), delivered an important judgment in Intermediate Investment Holdings Ltd v Imevbore & Ors 2026 SCJ 186 (IIHL Case). The Supreme Court declined to award costs sought by the Respondents following the Applicant’s withdrawal of an application for an interim injunction.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
8 May 2026

Outsourcing considerations for Bermuda insurers

As Bermuda insurers engage with third-party service providers to support their business functions, the Bermuda Monetary Authority has clarified its regulatory expectations surrounding outsourcing arrangements and operational resilience.

TechTalkGrid
6 May 2026

Podcast: 2026 Outlook: Digital Asset Developments

The mics are on for the latest episode of Tech Talks, as Appleby lawyers Jerome Wilson, George McCallum and Karim Creary turn their focus to Bermuda’s digital assets landscape and what’s coming into view for the rest of 2026.

Appleby-Website-Jersey2
6 May 2026

A Changing Landscape for Business Relocation

Find out more about the changing landscape for business relocation to Jersey

Website-Code-Cayman-1
29 Apr 2026

2026 Guide to Lending & Secured Finance in the Cayman Islands

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Lending & Secured Finance laws and regulations applicable in Cayman Islands.

jersey
29 Apr 2026

Experience Meets The Future: Inside Appleby's Property Team

Why Appleby Jersey's Property team offers grounded advice that is never stuck in the past

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.