You say potato, I say implied consent

One of my favourite things about the work I do is the mental stimulation I get from deciphering and learning the AML legislation in various jurisdictions.  (I know, I know: get a life.)  All of the jurisdictions in which I work have essentially the same requirements, but with local adjustments – and part of the fun is trying to guess why those adjustments have been made.

Guernsey has just amended its disclosure legislation, and made concomitant changes to its AML Handbooks (it has one for lawyers, accountants and estate agents, and another for everyone else in the AML regulated sector).  Among other things, Guernsey has introduced for the first time a “consent timetable”, with the local FIU undertaking to respond to consent requests within seven days.  We have the same here in the UK – but here we say that if you have heard nothing by the end of the seven days, you have “implied consent” (and can go ahead with the transaction/activity).  They don’t say that in Guernsey – and it’s interesting to mull on why that might be.  Perhaps the FIU is confident that they will never overshoot the seven days.  Perhaps they want the flexibility of knowing that, should they overshoot, the cautious MLRO (and they are all cautious by nature) will contact them rather than risk assuming a non-stated implied consent.  Or perhaps the legislators forgot.  You see – interesting.

This entry was posted in Legislation and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s