Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Published: 19 Mar 2026

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).

Primary Contact

Martin Byers

Partner
Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2004
E [email protected]

Martin Byers, Sailaja Alla, Matt Mulry, Maree Martin, Menelik Miller

SECURITIES INVESTMENT BUSINESS

Subject to certain exceptions, an entity that carries (or purports to carry) on SIB in the Cayman Islands will need to be licensed or registered with CIMA to do so – with regulated SIB activities including: (i) dealing in securities; (ii) arranging deals in securities; (iii) managing securities; and (iv) advising on securities (each as defined under SIBA).

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The Cayman AML Regulations, together with CIMA’s published Rules and SOG for SIBA Registered Persons, include provisions relating to corporate governance, AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions, internal controls, the nature, accessibility and retention of records, succession planning, outsourcing arrangements and cybersecurity – and effectively require SIBA Registered Persons to document and implement policies and procedures covering:

Risk Management, Governance and Internal Control Framework(s)
Internal Audit Plan(s)
AML/CFT/CPF and Sanctions Compliance Policies and Procedures
Customer / Client Risk Assessment(s)
Staff Training Log(s)
Outsourcing Policy and Outsourcing Risk Assessment(s)
Record Retention Policy
Cybersecurity Framework / Policies and Procedures

Noting that CIMA routinely requests copies of such key policies and procedures – alongside the following supporting plans and policy documentation – for review as part of its onsite inspection process for SIBA Registered Persons:

Business Plan
Business Continuity Plan
Complaints Policy
Remuneration Policy
Conflicts Management Policy (together with a Register (and copies) of any Conflicts Declarations made thereunder)
Succession Plan

KEY AML COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

SIBA Registered Persons are required to appoint an AML Compliance Officer (AMLCO), a Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) and a Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officer (DMLRO, who must be a different person to the MLRO).

CIMA has stated that it also expects SIBA Registered Persons to have their AML/CFT/CPF procedures, systems and controls regularly audited by suitably qualified persons for compliance with the Cayman AML Regulations – noting that the regularity of such audits should reflect the nature, size and complexity of the relevant SIB and any associated risks identified in a SIBA Registered Person’s relevant risk assessment(s).

Whilst in large institutions an internal audit function may feasibly be able to conduct this form of AML audit, CIMA has communicated a general expectation that, in keeping with the Cayman AML Regulations, AML audits on SIBA Registered Persons should: (i) be conducted by persons who are independent of the relevant business operations; and (ii) not be conducted, or approved, by a SIBA Registered Person’s own AML Officers.

ANNUAL DECLARATIONS

SIBA Registered Persons are required to submit an annual declaration (along with a prescribed annual fee) to CIMA by 15 January each year; and CIMA has the power, under the Monetary Authority Act (Revised), to impose an administrative fine of CI$5,000 on a SIBA Registered Person that breaches this annual filing requirement.

ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE REPORTING

The ES Act applies to ‘relevant entities’ (as defined under and for the purposes of the ES Act) that are licensed or otherwise authorised to carry on SIB under and pursuant to SIBA if they manage securities for an investment fund in circumstances involving the exercise of discretion.

A SIBA Registered Person that provides discretionary investment management services to an investment fund will typically therefore (unless an ES Act exception applies, for example, if such SIBA Registered Person is tax resident outside of the Cayman Islands) also need to prepare and file an Economic Substance Return (ESR) in respect of any financial year in which it does so with the Cayman Islands Tax Information Authority (TIA) – within twelve months after the last day of each such financial year.

Any such SIBA Registered Person with a financial year end of 31 December would need to file any required ESR with the TIA by no later than 31 December in the following calendar year – noting that, pursuant to the ES Act, the TIA may impose a financial penalty of for the late filing of an ESR and an additional financial penalty for each day that an already late ESR remains outstanding.

CRS REPORTING

A SIBA Registered Person that provides investment management or advisory services will also attract a registration requirement under the Cayman CRS Regulations.

SIBA-registered investment managers and advisers are generally classified as ‘Investment Entities’ and as ‘Reporting Financial Institutions’ under and for the purposes of the Cayman CRS Regulations. In contrast to the position for other ‘Investment Entities’ however, the Cayman CRS Regulations provide that the equity and debt interests of an investment manager or adviser will only be treated as a CRS ‘Financial Account’ if the relevant class of interests was established with the purpose of avoiding a CRS reporting obligation.

An investment manager or adviser that confirms on registration with the TIA that they have no ‘Financial Accounts’ under and in accordance with the Cayman CRS Regulations will not have a reporting obligation pursuant to the Cayman CRS Regulations unless and until such confirmation is no longer correct.

HOW WE CAN HELP

Appleby’s Regulatory Team has extensive experience advising SIBA Registered Persons on their legal and regulatory obligations under SIBA, the Cayman AML Regulations, the Cayman CRS Regulations and, where applicable, the ES Act – including in relation to: the submission of both Annual Declarations and, where required, ESR; and reviewing, updating and/or drafting of compliance policies and procedures.

For further information on or assistance with any of the matters referred to in this briefing please reach out to one of the Key Contacts listed below or to your usual Appleby point of contact.

More publications

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring

13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan V Mansimov Abstract

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

Alan Bercow, William Spence

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

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

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

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring-562x340

14 Jul 2026

Directors Cannot Delay Shareholder Votes: Cayman Court Limits Postponement Powers

Eliot Simpson, Ray Leung, Steven Yuen

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.