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.

Primary Contact

Martin Byers

Partner
Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2004
E [email protected]

Menelik Miller

Counsel
Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2978
E [email protected]

Martin Byers, Menelik Miller

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.

More publications

7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

Martin Byers, Maree Martin, Miriam Smyth, Menelik Miller

6 Aug 2026

The Rights of Sanctioned Litigants to access to the Court: Court of Appeal issues Key Decision in the BVI

The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has delivered a significant judgment in AO Alfa-Bank v Kipford Ventures Limited, overturning a stay of proceedings and reinstating a US$142 million freezing injunction. The decision provides important guidance on access to justice, sanctions, and interim relief in the BVI.

Andrew Willins, KC, Tamara Cameron

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

5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Alan Bercow, Daniel Coelho

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.

Harriet Ter-Berg, William Spence

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.

Alan Bercow, Zuhair Farouki

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.

Daniel Mitchell, Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin

28 Jul 2026

Bermuda’s digital asset foresight bearing fruit

The wisdom of Bermuda’s pioneering approach in the digital asset business space has been underlined by the latest global economic impact figures compiled by McKinsey & Company, the global management consulting firm.

George McCallum

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.

Susan Fallan, Daniel Coelho, Hannah Oh

17 Jul 2026

Where foreign law governs international transactions: Key impact and considerations for Mauritian parties

We live in an era where the world’s economies, populations and cultures are growing interdependently thanks to cross border transactions and Mauritius, as an international financial centre holds an important position in the arena. We pride ourselves in the hybrid legal system that is in place constituting of a blending of both common law and civil law. Such legacy allows us to participate in international transactions, whether in the context of financings, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures or commercial contracts, without much difficulty. It is therefore common for Mauritian entities to enter into agreements governed by foreign laws. One of the key clauses to the agreements governing these cross-border transactions is the choice of law and the agreed forum for dispute resolutions. This article explores the extent to which a Mauritian party can submit itself to the foreign laws governing international transactions.