Update: Cayman Islands Anti-Money Laundering Regulations, 2017

Published: 10 May 2018
Type: Insight

In December 2017 the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) issued updated Guidance Notes under the new Anti-Money Laundering Regulations, 2017 (AML Regulations) which came into force in October 2017.


The updated Guidance Notes raised a number of questions, some of which CIMA is still considering.  However, CIMA has recently confirmed the following:

1. Designation of Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO), Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officer (DMLRO) and Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer (AMLCO).

All Cayman domiciled funds will be required to appoint natural persons at managerial level to act as MLRO, DMLRO and AMLCO.

The same person can act as AMLCO and either MLRO or DMLRO. The MLRO and the DMLRO must be two separate individuals. All such appointments have to satisfy the relevant criteria set out in the Guidance Notes.

Funds may delegate these roles and examples of persons that can be appointed include:

the directors of the fund;

employees of the investment manager;

employees of the administrator; or

employees of other service providers.

For existing funds, these appointments have to be in place by 30 September 2018 and CIMA regulated funds have to file the names of the appointed individuals with CIMA by such date. Any new fund that is registered on or after 1 June 2018 must provide the names of the appointed individuals at the time of the submission of the registration application.

2. Gap Analysis

Where AML functions are delegated to a regulated service provider in a foreign country or territory which is recognised by the Cayman Islands as having an equivalent AML/CTF regime (an Approved Country), funds will be expected to demonstrate that they have considered the suitability of the delegate and its AML/CFT programme.

There is no expectation of a granular comparison between the Cayman Islands AML regime and that of an Approved Country, however, a gap analysis should be conducted to determine whether the outcome of applying the Cayman Islands regime and that of the Approved Country would be the same.  This is to ensure that a fund has duly considered country risk as part of its risk based approach.

3. Unregulated Investment Entities

Unregulated investment entities must also appoint a MLRO, DMLRO and AMLCO by 30 September 2018 (extended from the previous deadline of 31 May 2018).  There is still no sector-specific guidance, but such guidance is currently being developed by CIMA, in consultation with industry representatives, and will be published in due course.

While we wait for further clarifications and updates to the Guidance Notes, we would recommend that existing funds review their current AML/CTF policies and procedures or any delegation arrangements and take steps to ensure that MLROs, DMLROs and AMLCOs are appointed by the specified date.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Funds-and-Investment-Services
28 Oct 2026

Side Letters: Preferential Terms, Practical Challenges

Side letters are a common feature of Cayman Islands investment funds. This article outlines the legal framework governing side letters, the key considerations for fund operators when negotiating and granting preferential terms, and the implications of side letters for subscription financing arrangements.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
22 Oct 2026

Grand Court Sees Through "Specific Performance" Label And Stays Redemption Claim In Favour Of HKIAC Arbitration

We are pleased to report on our recent win in the Cayman Grand Court: a stay of Cayman proceedings concerning a US$87m+ redemption claim in favour of HKIAC arbitration. Doyle J found that the claim for "specific performance" was "entirely artificial and a mere device" intended to escape the arbitration clause. The Appleby team comprised John McCarroll SC, Damon Booth and Ray Leung (Hong Kong), and Andrew Jackson and Zuhair Farouki (Cayman). Andrew Ayres KC appeared as leading counsel.

Appleby-Website-Cayman1
21 Oct 2026

The Cayman Islands LLC at ten: what fund finance has learned

Ten years on, the Cayman Islands LLC is an established part of fund finance practice. A useful question is how an LLC’s contractual flexibility affects lender diligence, security and enforcement, and when an exempted company remains the more efficient financing vehicle.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
1 Sep 2026

The Executor's Year in the Law of the Cayman Islands

Of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the suit which stands at the centre of Bleak House and which concerned an estate drawn into the administration of the Court of Chancery, Dickens wrote that 'this scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means'. The complaint was not the novelist's invention. It was directed at a state of affairs in which the beneficiary dissatisfied with the conduct of an administration had in substance one remedy, a decree for general administration, which took the whole estate into the hands of the court and kept it there, upon occasion until there was little left to distribute.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
26 Aug 2026

Comparative Analysis of Cayman and BVI Companies as Listing Vehicles

This article provides an in-depth company-law comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Cayman Islands and BVI companies as listing vehicles, with a view to assisting businesses in selecting the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for their listing vehicle.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
13 Aug 2026

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

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.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
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.

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.

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.