19th May, 2008
REPORT
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Jersey) Regulations 200-
1. In October and November of this year the Island’s framework to counter money laundering and terrorist financing is to be the subject of a review by the International Monetary Fund. Jersey will be assessed against the international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (“FATF”). In order to implement a number of criteria set out in the 40 Recommendations and 9 Special Recommendations of the FATF, against which Jersey will be assessed, a number of amendments were proposed and passed by the States of Jersey last year in respect of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999, (“POCL”) the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law, 1988 (“DTOL”), the Terrorism (Jersey) Law, 2002 (“TL”) and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Jersey) Law, 2001 (“CJICL”). These amendments are now in force.
2. One of the amendments passed in respect of each of the laws referred to above sought to implement Recommendation 38, which requires countries to have appropriate laws and procedures in place to provide an effective and timely response to mutual legal assistance. Mutual legal assistance is the formal way in which countries request and provide assistance in obtaining evidence located in one country to assist in criminal investigations or proceedings in another country.
3. Prior to the amendment of the POCL, DTOL, TL and CJICL the provision of assistance to another jurisdiction to enable the enforcement of an external confiscation order under the POCL and DTOL, or an external restraint or forfeiture order under the TL, or the enforcement of an overseas forfeiture order under the CJICL was dependant on that jurisdiction being listed as a designated country or territory to whom assistance could be given. There was concern that Jersey would be criticised for not providing “effective” mutual legal assistance because the list of designated countries had not been kept up to date in recent years. Instead of updating the list of countries and territories (contained in Regulations issued under the various Laws), the better solution was considered to be that the list of countries and territories should be abandoned and that assistance should be offered on a case by case basis. This was the approach adopted in the amendments to the various Laws, which are now in force.
4. Prior to amendment, the CJICL provided that the provision of assistance to another jurisdiction to enable the enforcement of an overseas forfeiture order was conditional on that jurisdiction being listed in the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Jersey) Regulations 2001, as a designated country or territory to whom assistance can be given. As a result of amendments to the primary legislation the enforcement in Jersey of overseas forfeiture orders arising from criminal proceedings is no longer conditional on countries or territories being designated. The amendments enable overseas forfeiture orders from any jurisdiction to be capable of registration by the Royal Court.
5. Whilst the enforcement in Jersey of overseas forfeiture orders under the CJICL is no longer conditional on countries or territories being designated, the designated countries and territories remain listed in the Regulations made under the CJICL. Instead of amending the existing Regulations, it has been decided, in the interests of clarity, that the current Regulations should be repealed and replaced.
6. These draft Regulations would replace the current Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Jersey) Regulations, 2001 with provisions which are substantially the same as those contained in the current Regulations except that (i) the references to designated countries and territories are removed; and (ii) references to any provisions which have been repealed or amended as a result of the changes to the primary legislation have been altered.
Financial/Manpower Implications -
These Regulations have no financial or manpower resource implications for the States.