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
The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Website-Code-Cayman
20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation.  But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2]  The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up.  The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial
7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

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).

IWD website preview
9 Mar 2026

International Women’s Day 2026 Roundtable: Rights. Justice. Action. For all women and girls.

As we recognise International Women’s Day 2025, we are reminded that gender equality is not just a vision – it’s a call to action.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
3 Mar 2026

Cayman Islands Regulatory Round Up - Winter 2025/26

The round-up provides a concise yet thorough summary of regulatory developments relevant to financial service providers (FSPs) and other stakeholders in the Cayman Islands. It highlights key legislative changes, publications by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), updates on financial sanctions, and anticipates upcoming changes through "horizon scanning”. Links to the underlying CIMA publications, as well as related Appleby published briefings and e-alerts are available throughout this document. The information provided is “as of” 28 May 2025.