Draft Terrorism (Amendment No 3) (Jersey) Law 200-

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (25.07.08) to approve the draft Terrorism (Amendment no 3) (Jersey) Law 200-

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2008-0051
Decision Summary Title :	Terrorism Law – Amendment No 3		Date of Decision Summary:	Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Decision Summary Author:	Heidi Sydor Executive Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Terrorism (Amendment No 3) (Jersey) Law, 200-		Date of Written Report:	Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Written Report Author:	Legal Advisor		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Terrorism (Amendment No 3) (Jersey) Law 200-
Decision(s): The Minister approved the Terrorism (Amendment No 3)(Jersey) Law 200- for lodging ‘au Greffe’ for debate on the 8th September 2008.
Reason(s) for Decision: To comply with the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF)
Resource Implications: It is not possible to predict the resource implications of the proposed new Law with any accuracy, but a significant increase in resource requirements would seem unlikely. The situation will be monitored post implementation.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to lodge ‘for debate on 8th September 2008.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Draft Terrorism (Amendment No 3) (Jersey) Law 200-

Terrorism (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 200-

The Island’s framework to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism will be subject to review by the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) in October 2008.

A set of changes to the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002 (“TL”), as well as the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (“POCL”) and the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 (“DTOL”), have already been passed by the States of Jersey and are now in force. The most important changes introduced in this ‘first wave’ of amendments were the introduction of standardised obligations to report knowledge or suspicion of money laundering and terrorist financing across all three laws and extended powers to investigate suspected money laundering and terrorist financing.

These amendments form the ‘second wave’ of amendments and fall into three discrete areas:

1. Amending the definition of police officer

Currently Article 23 of the TL provides that certain offences will not be committed by a financial institution which knows or suspects another is engaged in a terrorist financing offence, provided that knowledge or suspicion is disclosed to an officer of the States of Jersey Police Force or a Customs Officer. Financial institutions make such disclosures in a set format, known as a suspicious activity report.

Jersey was last assessed by the IMF in 2003. The IMF requested Jersey to require such disclosures to be submitted to the Joint Financial Crimes Unit (“JFCU”), which has practical responsibility for the receipt, analysis and dissemination of suspicious activity reports from financial institutions.

It is not possible for the Law to be amended to require that disclosures are made directly to “the JFCU” because the JFCU has no separate statutory identity. In order to get around this issue the approach used in the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order, 2008 (“MLO”) has been adopted. The MLO already establishes the concept of designated police and customs officers (to be designated by the Chief of Police and the Agent of the Impôts) as a means of specifying the staff of the JFCU (see Article 6 of the MLO).

The amendments set out in Articles 2 - 5 would mean that in the case of a disclosure by a financial institution, the disclosure would have to be made to a designated officer who will be an officer in the JFCU. In the case of a disclosure by anyone else, under Article 20, the current position under the Law would remain and a disclosure could continue to be made to any States of Jersey Police or Customs Officer.

2. Definition of business relationship

The definition of “business relationship” in Schedule 6, paragraph 7(2) of the TL would be amended by Article 7 to mirror the definition that is now used in Article 1(1) of the MLO. The same amendment is proposed to Schedule 3, paragraph 6(2) of the POCL and Schedule 2, paragraph 6(2) of the DTOL.

3. Accounts held “with” a financial institution

Article 7 would amend paragraph 1(3)(a) and (1)(4)(a) of Schedule 7 of the TL. Those paragraphs currently refer to “accounts held at” a financial institution and the changes would amend that wording to “accounts held with” a financial institution. A “financial institution” is defined by Article 1(1) of the TL to mean any person carrying on any business described in Schedule 2 to the POCL. Because the definition of a financial institution relates to a “person” it is considered that the references should be to accounts held “with” that person rather than “at” that person.

Financial and Manpower Implications

It is not possible to predict the resource implications of the proposed new Law with any accuracy, but a significant increase in resource requirements would seem unlikely. The situation will be monitored post implementation.

European Convention on Human Rights

In accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, and in the view of the Minister for Home Affairs, the provisions of the Terrorism (Amendment No 3) Jersey Law 200- are compatible with the Convention Rights.