What Are the Duties of the Anti-Money Laundering Officers of a Cayman Fund?

Published: 2 Oct 2024
Type: Insight

All Cayman Islands funds are required to designate a natural person at managerial level as their Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer (AMLCO), Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) and Deputy MLRO (DMLRO).

This publication outlines the primary duties of each of the AMLCO, MLRO and DMLRO (AML Officers) as they apply to hedge funds, private funds and unregulated funds in the Cayman Islands (Funds).


Cayman AML Officer Requirements

The appointment of the AML Officers is required for the purpose of ensuring compliance by their Funds with the requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) relating to money laundering and other criminal conduct and with the requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Revised) (Regulations).

The Regulations specifically impose on any designated AMLCO the broad duty to ensure that measures set out in the Regulations are adopted by the Fund.

The Guidance Notes on the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing in the Cayman Islands (Guidance) produced by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) sets out additional requirements clarifying the role of each of the AML Officers.

The Duties of the Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer of a Cayman Fund

The role of AMLCO to a Cayman Fund involves the following duties:

  • to oversee the compliance function of the Fund including the effectiveness of its anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML) systems, its compliance with applicable AML legislation and guidance and the day to day operation of its AML policies and procedures;
  • to be a person who is fit and proper to assume the role of AMLCO;
  • to maintain sufficient skills and experience and to have sufficient seniority and authority to ensure that the Fund’s governing body acts on their recommendations;
  • to ensure regular direct contact with the Fund’s governing body to advise them on whether the Fund is meeting its statutory obligations and the strength of the measures it’s taking against money laundering and terrorist financing risks;
  • to maintain sufficient resources including those of time and staff;
  • to have unfettered access to all service providers and information relating to the Fund as necessary to discharge the role of AMLCO;
  • to develop, maintain and monitor systems and controls in line with existing and evolving AML requirements including risk assessment policies and procedures appropriate to their size, nature and complexity of the Fund;
  • to ensure regular audits of the Fund’s AML program to test the AML systems and ensure that they adhere to the AML requirements;
  • to maintain various logs for the Fund, as necessary, which should include logs with respect to declined business, politically exposed persons, and requests from competent authorities particularly in relation to investigations;
  • to advise the operators of the Fund of AML compliance issues relating to the Fund’s activities or investors that need to be brought to its attention;
  • to report periodically and not less than annually to the operators of the Fund on the Fund’s AML systems and controls and those of its service providers;
  • to respond promptly to requests for information by the relevant competent authorities;
  • to ensure that that any staff member of the Fund or those of its service providers involved in the relevant activities of the Fund is aware of the identity of the MLRO (and DMLRO) and are screened and appropriately trained in accordance with the AML regime; and
  • to ensure that all internal suspicious activity reports are submitted to the MLRO or in their absence to the DMLRO.

The Duties of the Money Laundering Reporting Officer of a Cayman Fund

The role of MLRO to a Cayman Fund involves the following duties:

  • to receive reports of any activity, information or other matter relating to the Fund’s activities or investors which comes to the attention of any person and which, in the opinion of that person, gives rise to a knowledge or suspicion or reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in, or a transaction or attempted transaction relates to, money laundering or terrorist financing (suspicious activity reports) made by the Fund’s staff or those of its service providers;
  • to be autonomous, being the final decision maker as to whether to file suspicious activity reports with the Financial Reporting Authority in the Cayman Islands (FRA);
  • to be independent (meaning having no vested interest in the underlying activity of the Fund, CIMA has determined that the MLRO cannot be a director or equity holder of their Fund);
  • to dedicate sufficient time for the efficient discharge of the MLRO function, particularly where the MLRO has other professional responsibilities;
  • to be suitably qualified and experienced for the role of MLRO;
  • to be well versed in the different types of transactions which the Fund handles and which may give rise to opportunities for money laundering or terrorist financing;
  • where located outside of the Cayman Islands and filing a suspicious activity report with the appropriate authority in their home country, to simultaneously file a suspicious activity report with the FRA where permitted by the laws and regulations of their home country;
  • to have access to all relevant material in order to make an assessment as to whether an activity detailed in a suspicious activity report received by the MLRO is or is not suspicious;
  • to determine whether the information contained in any suspicious activity report received from the Fund’s staff or those of its service providers supports the suspicion detailed therein and to investigate the details in order to determine whether in all the circumstances they should in turn submit a report to the FRA;
  • to promptly submit a suspicious activity report to the FRA where they decide that an internal suspicious activity report substantiates the suspicions detailed therein;
  • to record fully the reasons for their decision not to submit a suspicious activity report to the FRA where they decide that an internal suspicious activity report does not substantiate the suspicions detailed therein;
  • to establish and maintain a register of suspicious activity reports made to them by the Fund’s staff and those of its service providers;
  • to receive in-depth training on all aspects of the primary AML legislation, the Regulations, supervisory and regulatory rules and guidance and relevant internal policies; and
  • to receive appropriate initial and ongoing training on the investigation, determination and reporting of suspicious activities, on the feedback arrangements and on new trends of criminal activity.

The Duties of the Deputy Money Laundering Reporting Officer of a Cayman Fund

The role of DMLRO to a Cayman Fund involves the following duties:

  • to have a similar status to the MLRO;
  • to have similar experience to the MLRO;
  • to receive the same training as the MLRO; and
  • to discharge the MLRO functions in the absence of the MLRO.

Delegation of the Anti-Money Laundering Officer Roles

A Fund may designate its AMLCO to also act as MLRO or vice versa as far as the person is competent, has sufficient time to perform both roles efficiently and understands the roles and responsibilities of each function. A person designated as MLRO for a Fund may not also act as the DMLRO of that Fund.

Irrespective of whether the AML Officers are employees and the Fund is performing the function on its own, or has delegated the performance of the compliance functions to a person or relied on a person to perform the compliance functions, the Fund is ultimately responsible for complying with the applicable AML obligations.

Our Funds and Regulatory Support in the Cayman Islands

Our funds and regulatory team have seen an increased demand from clients for advice and assistance on ensuring that their regulatory policies and procedures are aligned with CIMA’s expectations as contained in the AML legislation, Regulations and Guidance. We regularly advise our Fund clients and their appointed AML Officers on how best to discharge their AML obligations.

Our board support services, if not already adopted by our Fund clients, can provide an essential tool to ensure that they are appropriately addressing the Cayman AML requirements and that they are kept up to date with all regulatory developments in the Cayman Islands.

 

 

Disclaimer: This information is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. For specific regulatory advice, please contact any member of our regulatory team
Share
More publications
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.

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

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

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.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Appleby-Website-Fraud-and-Asset-Tracing
8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Jul 2026

CIMA’s 2026 Reinsurance Thematic Review: Focus Points for Boards

The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) has published its 2026 Thematic Review of Reinsurance Companies (Thematic Review). This reflects fieldwork conducted by CIMA between mid-2025 and Q1 2026 at selected Class B(iii) and Class D licensed reinsurers. The focus being on compliance with the Insurance Act (as revised) and other applicable legislation, regulations, rules and statements of guidance as issued by CIMA centering around stress-testing, cash flow testing frameworks, capital and collateral adequacy management, and corporate governance. Corporate governance weaknesses account for 68% of all findings with the remaining 32% spread across stress-testing, cash flow testing capital and collateral adequacy. Notwithstanding these findings, CIMA has noted several good practices across all areas including, importantly, comprehensive risk management frameworks covering key risk areas and strong capital and collateral adequacy monitoring processes. With Cayman’s reinsurance sector having grown to an institutional scale, and over 110 licensed reinsurers writing in the order of US$30 billion in annual premiums against over US$100 billion in assets, this latest Thematic Review demonstrates development in CIMA’s supervisory expectations of Cayman’s licensed reinsurers. It represents a reflection of the jurisdiction’s increasingly sophisticated and maturing reinsurance market and reinforces that CIMA’s expectations align closely with the standards that onshore counterparty cedants, rating agencies and US state regulators already expect. We take this opportunity to review certain of the key findings alongside CIMA’s cross-sectoral 2026 Thematic Review on Outsourcing, note some of the good practices highlighted by CIMA and make some associated recommendations for Cayman reinsurers.