Recent amendments to the Cayman Islands Securities Investment Business Law

Published: 12 Jul 2019
Type: Insight

On 18 June 2019 certain key changes to the regulatory framework and ongoing filings required for persons regulated under the Securities Investment Business Law (2019 Revision) (the SIB Law) were introduced. Previously, persons regulated under the law fell into one of two categories: licensees or excluded persons. Excluded persons engaged in securities investment business were exempted from the full licensing requirements of the SIB Law.


Registered Persons and Non-Registrable Persons

The Securities Investment Business (Amendment) Law, 2019 (Amendment Law) replaces the concept of excluded person with that of “registered person”. Entities listed in Schedule 4 to the SIB Law (formerly excluded persons) are required to register with the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA). An applicant for registration must satisfy CIMA that the applicant’s shareholders, directors and senior officers are fit and proper persons. As was the case for excluded persons, a registered person must file an annual declaration with CIMA and pay an annual fee. Annual declarations are due on 15 January each year, with the first declaration of Registered Persons (including former excluded persons) to be filed with CIMA by 15 January 2020.

A new category of non-registrable persons has also been introduced as Schedule 2A to the SIB Law. These persons were previously classified as excluded persons but would not have been required to file with CIMA an annual declaration or pay an annual fee.

Directors of Registered Persons

Prior to introduction of the Amendment Law, licensees under the SIB Law were required to have no fewer than two directors, or in the case of a company that does not have directors, two managers. No such minimum applied to excluded persons. The Amendment Law expands this requirement to apply to not only licensees but also to registered persons. This is a significant change, given that in order to serve as a director of an entity regulated under the SIB Law, such director must also comply with the Directors Registration and Licensing Law, 2014 (as amended), including the requirement to register with CIMA and to pay an annual fee.

New Filings and Deadlines

In addition to the requirement to re-register by 15 January 2020, under the Amendment Law registered persons must also provide CIMA with certain information by 15 August 2019. Failure to re-register or to supply the requested information will result in a registered person being deregistered by CIMA.

As of the date of writing, there are two forms to be filed with CIMA by the 15 August 2019 deadline. These are AIR-157-75AML Inherent Risk – Securities and ARC-158-75AML Risk Controls – Securities. To access these documents, please get in touch with your usual Appleby contact or any of the contacts below. Completed forms must be filed electronically via CIMA’s REEFS Portal. Registered persons should contact their registered office services provider to assist with these filings without delay.

CIMA’s Powers and Enforcement

Under the new Amendment Law, CIMA will have discretionary powers to:
(a) impose conditions on an applicant for registration at the time of registration;
(b) refuse registration for an applicant for registration; and
(c) employ its enforcement powers against a registered person.

CIMA will also have the power to give cease and desist directions to a licensee or registered person in relation to that person’s securities investment business. Failure to comply, without reasonable cause, will constitute an offence and subject a person, on summary conviction, to a fine of CI$50,000 or imprisonment for a term of one year, or both; or, on conviction on indictment, to a fine of CI$100,000 or imprisonment for a term of five years, or both, with a further fine of CI$10,000 for every day on which the offence is continued after conviction.

Final Thoughts

The Amendment Law as adopted did not retain certain provisions relating to substance for licensees and registered persons, as had been contemplated in an earlier bill. Persons engaged in the business of “managing securities” as defined under the SIB Law, however, need still be aware that they may well have obligations relating to economic substance under the regime as set forth under the International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Law, 2018 (as amended). Persons engaged in this category of securities investment business are strongly encouraged to contact a member of the Investment Funds team below or their usual Appleby contact to discuss.

If you would like further information on any topic, please do not hesitate to ask your usual Appleby contact.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
11 Feb 2026

When the Court intervenes… and when it does not: Grand Court Reaffirms Limited Curial Intervention in Support of Foreign Arbitrations

The Financial Services Division of the Grand Court’s judgment in In the matter of A v B & C (FSD 270 of 2025) provides a timely reminder of the proper boundaries between national courts and international arbitration tribunals in respect of the grant of interim relief. The decision underscores the Cayman Islands' commitment to the principle of limited curial intervention and confirms that the Court’s powers under section 54 of the Arbitration Act 2012 are ancillary to the arbitral process and are only to be exercised when the tribunal cannot provide effective relief itself. The judgment helpfully sets out clear parameters for those seeking ancillary relief and highlights that the Cayman courts will support arbitration proceedings without supplanting them.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
5 Feb 2026

Recusal For Apparent Bias Is Not A New Frontier

In Re New Frontier Health Corporation,[1] Justice Doyle decided to recuse himself, such that he would not hear the trial listed to commence weeks later, on the basis that he made findings in his recent Re 51job Inc judgment, as to the reliability and credibility of the same two experts who would give evidence at the New Frontier trial. The New Frontier judgment represents a further endorsement by the Cayman courts of the fundamental maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
4 Feb 2026

The New Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework – Relevance for Cayman Investment Funds

The Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) Regulations, 2025 (CARF Regulations) came into effect on 1 January 2026 and provide for the collection, reporting and automatic exchange of information on transactions in crypto-assets.  The CARF Regulations will operate in a similar fashion to the existing Cayman Common Reporting Standard (CRS) regime which facilitates the automatic exchange of financial account information.  For information on recent changes to the CRS, please see our December advisory here.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
27 Jan 2026

CIMA Launches Prudential Information Survey for SIBA Registered Persons

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published a General Industry Notice launching a new Prudential Information Survey for Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (SIBA) of the Cayman Islands.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
15 Dec 2025

Aquapoint LP v Fan: Privy Council Confirms Equitable Constraints Can Override Strict Contractual Rights in Cayman ELP Winding Up

In its recent judgment in Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) v Fan,[1] the Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Grand Court and Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA). The ruling confirms that the exercise of strict legal rights under a limited partnership agreement – even one containing detailed contractual terms and “entire agreement” clauses – can nevertheless be subject to equitable considerations in certain circumstances. Where those equitable considerations arise, they may justify the winding up of an exempted limited partnership on the “just and equitable” basis. Appleby acts for the joint official liquidators of Aquapoint; for further details on the background of this case, see Appleby’s previous article here.