What Steps Should a Cayman Fund Take to Comply with the New Cayman Beneficial Ownership Regime?

Published: 19 Aug 2024
Type: Insight

All Cayman Islands funds (other than unit trusts) are required to identify “required particulars” in relation to their investors and provide those particulars to the Cayman Islands Ministry of Financial Services under the Beneficial Ownership Transparency Act (the Act). Once identified the required particulars must be kept up to date and can be made available to certain government agencies in the Cayman Islands and the United Kingdom but not, as yet, to the public. Our general briefing on the Cayman Beneficial Ownership Regime can be found here.


Registered Funds

Funds that are registered under the Mutual Funds Act (Revised) or the Private Funds Act (Revised) can opt to follow an alternative route to compliance.  This option involves the provision of required particulars and other information only when requested by the Cayman Ministry of Financial Services and Commerce (the Authority).  That information needs to be provided by a contact person that is registered or licensed under a regulatory law and within 24 hours or at such other time as the Authority may specify. To opt in to this alternative requires the fund’s registered office to confirm to the Authority that the fund is registered and to confirm the contact details of the person who will comply with the Authority’s requests.

Unregistered Funds and Funds Opting to Comply

Where a Cayman fund is not registered or where it opts to comply with the Act’s obligations to maintain a beneficial ownership register its registered office will need to file the required particulars with the Authority at least once each month.  This option may be preferable to engaging the fund’s Cayman administrator or registered office to comply with the Authority’s requests within 24 hours.

The required particulars relate to every individual and every Cayman entity (other than trusts) that directly or indirectly holds or controls 25% or more of the equity interests or voting rights of the fund or otherwise controls the fund or its management (excluding professional advisors and managers). If there are no individuals but there is a trust with such a holding or control required particulars of the trustees should be filed if they have ultimate effective control over the activities of the trust other than as professional advisors or managers. Where the trustee is a foreign corporation only its name and details of its contact persons need be filed. If there are no such individuals and no such trustees, contact details of a director of the fund should be filed with the Authority.

The particulars to be filed with the authority for individuals are the name, address, address for service, date of birth, nationality, identity document details, nature of control and the date they became registerable under the Act. For entities these are their name, address, legal form, nature of control, registration number and date they became registerable. Corporations sole, government departments, international organizations of governments and public authorities are treated as individuals for the purposes of the Act and their particulars are their name, address, legal form, jurisdiction and date on which they became registerable.

Guidance issued by the Authority on compliance with the Act provides that where the required particulars of a Cayman entity are included in a fund’s beneficial ownership register there is no need to include any information on the beneficial owners of that Cayman entity which will make its own filings under the Act.  Percentages of equity interests are calculated by reference to beneficial owners’ rights to share in the capital or profits of the fund and not by reference to the number of equity interests held. We would expect that investor registers of Cayman funds will generally include the percentage of the fund’s capital held by each investor but in some cases investor registers may need to be updated to include this information and account may need to be taken of the differing net asset values of different classes and series and whether there are distributing and accumulating classes in the fund. A fund may also be applying simplified due diligence for some investors under their anti-money laundering procedures and will need to reach out to those investors in order to obtain the information required for the fund’s beneficial ownership register.

Before filing the required particulars with the Authority, the fund’s registered office is required to verify the required particulars from reliable sources. Where an investor is required to be added to the beneficial ownership register after their initial subscription this may require the provision of updated certified copy identification and address verification documents to the fund’s registered office.

Steps Required to Comply with the Act

The Act came into force on 31 July 2024 and its provisions will be enforced from 1 January 2025. To prepare for compliance with the Act in time for that deadline funds should ensure that they engage with their registered office service providers and administrators as early as possible to confirm that those service providers are aware of the fund’s responsibilities under the Act and the roles that they will need to fulfil to ensure that the required information is filed with the Authority.

Administration agreements and registered office services agreements may need to be updated to incorporate the provision of beneficial ownership services.  Those services might include obligations to obtain required particulars from investors, to provide persons to act as points of contact with the Authority, to give notices under the Act including restrictions notices, to maintain a current register of required particulars for the fund, to monitor changes in investor’s equity holdings and control of the fund, to report on any missing required particulars and to file required particulars or to provide these with supporting evidence to the fund’s registered office.

Subscription documents should be updated to include details of registered particulars of investors and where applicable their beneficial owners, an obligation to notify the fund’s administrator of any changes to those particulars and representations around control exercised over the fund.

For existing investors where the required particulars are not already held as part of the anti-money laundering due diligence collected for those investors, notices should be sent by the fund’s administrator requiring the provision of the relevant details and verification documents.

Exemptions

Cayman funds that are listed on a recognized stock exchange or that are a subsidiary of an entity listed on such an exchange need only confirm the name and jurisdiction of that exchange to the Authority and are not required to collect, maintain or file required particulars of their investors. A subsidiary for these purposes will have a listed entity (i) holding 75% or more of its shares or voting rights, (ii) exercising ultimate effective control over it (including indirect control through a chain of ownership) or (iii) controlling it by other means.  To avail of this exemption requires that the fund’s registered office confirms to the Authority that the fund is listed or is a subsidiary of a listed entity and the name and jurisdiction of the relevant stock exchange.

Cayman funds that are licensed under the Mutual Funds Act (Revised) or any other Cayman regulatory law need only confirm the regulatory law under which they are licensed.  The use of licensed Cayman funds is rare and these currently account for less than 0.4% of regulated Cayman mutual funds.  To avail of this exemption requires that the fund’s registered office confirms to the Authority the regulatory law under which the fund is licensed.

Notwithstanding the availability of any exemption the Authority is entitled to request information or documents from the fund for the purposes of carrying out its functions under the Act, verifying beneficial ownership information, assisting with the prevention or detection of crime, furthering interests of national security or enabling certain law enforcement, regulatory and other government departments in the Cayman Islands to fulfil their statutory obligations.  Notices from the Authority for these purposes must be complied with within the period and manner specified in the notice.

Availability of Beneficial Ownership Information

The Authority will operate a search platform by means of which certain law enforcement, regulatory and other government departments in the Cayman Islands may be provided with access to information on all beneficial ownership registers maintained under the Act.  In addition, the Authority may search that platform on a formal request of the Financial Crime Unit of the Cayman Islands Police where a senior official of that unit certifies that the search is at the request of a UK law enforcement official in accordance with the agreement entered into between the Cayman Islands and UK governments respecting the sharing of beneficial ownership information.

Beneficial ownership information will not be available to the public under the Act but the Act does allow the Cayman Islands government to make regulations allowing the Authority to provide the public with access to the name, country of residence, nationality, month and year of birth and nature of control of any individual beneficial owner and the name, registered office, legal form, registration number and nature of control of any Cayman entity whose details are maintained on their search platform.

Our Funds and Regulatory Support in the Cayman Islands

Our funds and regulatory teams regularly assist our clients to ensure that they are up to date with current and developing regulation in the Cayman Islands. Our board support services can provide an essential tool to ensure that our funds clients and their directors are kept up to date with and are appropriately addressing all regulatory developments in the Cayman Islands.

This information is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. For specific legal and regulatory advice, please contact any member of our funds and/or regulatory teams.

Key contacts
Share
More publications
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.

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.