But leading figures in the Island’s finance industry have also warned that Jersey must only accept clients who ‘pass the muster’ of its high regulatory standards and it must not ‘endeavour to benefit’ from a decision made by the UK parliament.
Earlier this week, the House of Commons passed an amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill to impose fully public registers of the beneficial ownership of companies on the British Overseas Territories, such as Bermuda, Cayman and the British Virgin Islands.
The move will see the ownership details of all individuals who ultimately own assets held by companies in those jurisdictions made publicly available – a move which will threaten confidentiality arrangements favoured by many wealthy clients.
Another amendment calling for a similar register to be imposed on the Crown Dependencies – Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man – was dropped at the last minute following lobbying by the governments of all three jurisdictions.
Mike Byrne, the chairman of the Jersey Funds Association, said: ‘If you have a high-value, high-net-worth or high-profile individual they prefer to keep their affairs private.
‘It’s important to understand that there is a distinction between that and individuals who want to hide their money. As a high-net-worth, high-profile individual you have a right to privacy.
‘There are security reasons – you have to remember a lot of these individuals live in places which are not as safe as somewhere like Jersey. They need to protect their families.
‘Or they might simply not want their children to know how much wealth they have.’
He said that the imposition of a fully transparent register could persuade clients to leave a jurisdiction, and that individuals with interests in the British Overseas Territories could now be tempted to relocate to places such as Jersey.
‘I think there’s no doubt that there will be some movement but we would need to make sure that they pass the muster [meet regulatory standards] for Jersey,’ he said.
John Henwood, a former vice-chairman of Jersey Finance, said that he also believed Jersey could benefit as clients leave the British Overseas Territories.
He added, however, that he believes campaigners in the UK will continue to put pressure on the Crown Dependencies to also adopt fully transparent registers.
‘This is being driven by a socialist agenda promoted by those who abhor the accumulation of private wealth, even entirely legitimately accumulated wealth,’ he said.
‘It will not stop until a perceived socialist utopia is achieved. Trouble is, there is no such thing – as the citizens of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics discovered to their pain and misery.’
Investment manager and former Senator Ben Shenton said that he was confident the UK had limited powers to meddle in Jersey’s affairs but warned that it was best not to upset ‘powerful neighbours’.
‘The move by the UK Parliament was interesting in as much as it may educate the populous on the difference between Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories,’ he said.
‘While I am confident of our independence from the UK from both a historic and legal viewpoint, and the limited powers of UK MPs to meddle in our affairs, I am also aware that if you live next to powerful neighbours it is better not to upset them.’
And he warned that Jersey should be careful about taking financial services business from other offshore centres.
‘Jersey should not endeavour to benefit from actions taken by the UK on other jurisdictions. All new business must pass the “reason why” and “substance” tests, and any business fleeing other territories should be subject to both suspicion and enhanced due diligence,’ he said.
‘There are basic human rights to privacy and these can be maintained if we develop our Island as a safe haven with very high standards.’
