澤西島金融監管機構已放棄原定於本月底發布關於附表 2 反洗錢 (AML) 框架的修訂指南的計劃。

這些規則決定了哪些機構需要根據1999 年《澤西島犯罪收益法》（以下簡稱「該法」）進行註冊，並在 2025 年 12 月至 2026 年 1 月期間進行了為期八週的公眾諮詢。提案中的某些方面引起了金融服務業的強烈反對，尤其是在公司受託人方面。

爭議的焦點在於，作為非專業受託人的金融服務機構是否可以被視為以「企業」身分開展業務。該法第36條規定，非專業受託人屬於該法所指的金融服務機構，並須遵守澤西島的反洗錢制度；然而，非專業受託人無需在澤西金融服務委員會（JFSC）註冊。澤西金融服務委員會指出，判斷一項活動是否以企業身分開展，可能涉及主觀判斷，而澤西島的法律和金融行動特別工作組（FATF）的指導意見均未對此作出明確規定。

最初，該機構提議發布新的指導方針，修訂對第36條的解釋，使其應用更加便捷和一致。這包括建構結構化的“附表2准入標準”，以及一項側重於業務活動、“作為一家企業”標準和澤西島關聯性的三部分測試，以確定是否需要註冊。此外，該機構還將針對複雜領域提供有針對性的指導，以減少歧義並促進一致性。

然而，參與諮詢的受訪者認為這些內容不足，要求在某些方面提供更多細節，尤其是在「作為一家企業」的標準方面，以及需要為這類實體提供更大的確定性。他們也「強烈呼籲」對公司受託人採取不同的方法，這需要修改立法。受訪者也強調，在最終指南發布後需要有足夠的過渡期，並要求將實施日期延後到2026年4月之後。對於公佈附表2實體登記冊的計劃，受訪者的意見也存在分歧，一些受訪者支持這一做法，而另一些受訪者則提出了保密性、隱私和競爭力方面的擔憂。

因此，JFSC決定不按原計劃於4月30日實施修訂後的指導方針。取而代之的是，它將與政府和業界合作制定一項新的公司非專業受託人法令。該法令將明確規定，在非商業性、純粹的家族安排等結構中，公司受託人將被視為非專業人士，因為他們並非以營利為目的開展業務。

符合相關標準的公司受託人將須遵守反洗錢令規定的義務，並須向澤西金融服務委員會 (JFSC) 報告。此外，《2008 年澤西島反洗錢令》也將進行修訂，以減輕公司受託人及其他使用反洗錢服務提供者的人員的合規負擔。如果服務提供者能夠妥善履行相關人員的義務，則無需重複工作。
在

澤西島即將舉行的選舉結束後，將就這套擬議的改革方案進行進一步諮詢。

Jersey amends 'operating as a business' rule plan for corporate trustees

Jersey's financial regulator has dropped plans to issue revised guidelines on the Schedule 2 anti-money laundering (AML) framework at the end of this month.

The rules, which determine which institutions are to be registered under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (the Law), were subject to an eight-week consultation between December 2025 and January 2026. Some aspects of the proposals attracted strong opposition from the financial services industry, especially concerning the approach to corporate trustees.

The controversial point is whether a financial services business acting as a non-professional trustee can be considered to be operating 'as a business' in that role. Article 36 of the Law provides that non-professional trustees are financial services businesses under that law and are subject to obligations under Jersey's AML regime; however, non-professional trustees are not required to register with the JFSC. Whether an activity is conducted as a business can be a qualitative matter requiring an element of subjective judgement, on which neither Jersey's laws nor the Financial Action Task Force guidance are prescriptive, says the Jersey Financial Services Commission (JFSC).

It originally proposed to issue new guidelines revising the interpretation of art.36 to make its application more accessible and consistent. This was to include structured 'Schedule 2 gateways', a three-part test focusing on activity, the ‘as a business’ criterion and Jersey nexus to determine whether registration was required. It would also provide targeted guidance on complex areas to reduce ambiguity and promote consistency.

However, respondents to its consultation considered this inadequate, requesting further detail in some areas, particularly on the 'as a business' criterion, and the need for greater certainty for such entities. They also 'strongly called for' a different approach to corporate trustees, which would require legislative change. Respondents also emphasised the need for sufficient lead-in time following publication of the final guidelines and requested that implementation be pushed back beyond April 2026. There were also mixed feelings about the plan to publish a register of Schedule 2 entities, with some respondents supporting the concept and others raising confidentiality, privacy and competitiveness concerns.

As a result, the JFSC has decided not to implement the revised guidelines on 30 April as originally planned. Instead, it will work with government and industry on a new corporate non-professional trustees order. This will clarify that, where structures are closely held, non-commercial, pure family arrangements, corporate trustees will be treated as non-professional in that they are not conducting their activities as a business.

Corporate trustees who meet the relevant criteria will be made subject to money laundering order obligations and will be required to notify the JFSC. Changes will also be made to the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008 to reduce the compliance burden on corporate trustees and others who use an AML services provider. Where the provider appropriately fulfils and performs the relevant person's obligations, there will be no need to duplicate the work.

A further consultation on this proposed package of reforms will be held after Jersey's imminent election period.

Sources