Guernsey: Sars And Private Law Actions – The 'Chilling Effect' Of Guernsey's AML Legislation In Practice

Carey Olsen partner Mark Dunster and counsel Simon Florance consider the recent judgment in Liang v RBC Trustees (Guernsey) Limited – the first time a private law action of this kind has been brought in the Guernsey courts by a person denied access to assets as a result of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) – and highlight the lessons to be learned from the case.

On 10 May 2018, the Royal Court of Guernsey handed down its judgment in Liang v RBC Trustees (Guernsey) Limited.  This was the first private law action brought by a person denied access to assets as a result of a SAR made to Guernsey's Financial Intelligence Service (the FIS).

This kind of private law action was foreshadowed by the Guernsey Court of Appeal in an earlier decision1, as a by-product of the "chilling effect" of Guernsey's anti-money laundering legislation; namely The Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1999 (the POC Law).

Unlike its English counterpart, there is no mechanism under the POC Law whereby the FIS is deemed to consent to a transaction if they take no action within a certain period (7 days in England).  The upshot is that funds can be effectively "frozen" if a SAR is lodged and the FIS do not provide consent to the funds being accessed by their owners or a third party. 

The FIS can simply refuse to provide its consent, and then do nothing more.  In stark contrast to the English regime where the responsibility of taking action (and quickly) falls squarely on the authorities' shoulders, the Guernsey legislation effectively renders the financial institution the de facto enforcement agency.

On one view, this creates an unacceptable situation as assets can be left in limbo indefinitely unless their owner brings court proceedings against the financial institution holding them.  That institution is also placed in an unenviable position as it bears the brunt of its client's frustration, particularly given the institution cannot (at least initially) explain the reason for refusing the client's otherwise lawful instructions. 

Although Liang is the first decision on a private law action of its kind in Guernsey, no doubt there are many others in the same position as Ms Liang and more actions will appear in the Court's list.  This is particularly so given that the Guernsey Court of Appeal has indicated that such an action is the most appropriate course to take2.


The factual background of the case is not overly significant. In short:

  • Ms Liang is a beneficiary to a discretionary trust administered by RBC Trustees (Guernsey) Limited (RBC) known as the Lavender (2009) Trust (the Trust). 
  • In 2011, RBC became aware of information that Ms Liang's now estranged husband, Mr Li, was wanted by the Hong Kong authorities for questioning in relation to alleged property fraud.
  • Mr Li was on the Hong Kong's wanted list as he had left the jurisdiction and the investigations were pending.  Given that alleged fraudulent transactions had been for the benefit of a company that had settled money into the Trust, RBC made a SAR to the Trust in 2011.
  • In 2013, Ms Liang requested that RBC terminate the Trust and distribute the Trust funds.  In light of the SAR, RBC was unable to comply and (due to the tipping-off offences) to inform Ms Liang as to the basis for non-compliance.  Any compliance officer will be very familiar with this scenario.
  • Eventually, the FIS allowed RBC to disclose the basis of its suspicion to Ms Liang.  The FIS also allowed the fact of its "no consent" decision to be made known to the client.  RBC entered into a dialogue with Ms Liang with a view to obtaining further and independent evidence to show the provenance of the Trust funds was not the proceeds of crime.  Unfortunately, Ms Liang was reluctant to provide the information. 

Ms Liang's first set of advocates initially brought an application under the Trust (Guernsey) Law, 2007 seeking (interestingly) an order requiring RBC itself to bring an application before the Court for directions as to how it should act in the circumstances.  This application was subsequently abandoned by Ms Liang in favour of the private law action. 

Although RBC sought to take a neutral position throughout the proceedings, it was expected to assist the Court by presenting relevant evidence and testing Ms Liang's case.  This is the nature of Guernsey's adversarial system of litigation.  RBC, through its staff but crucially through its advocate, had to take on the role that a prosecution authority might be expected to undertake.

Essentially, the Deputy Bailiff found that RBC was reasonable in holding its suspicion upon which the SAR was based.  However, although sympathetic to the position that Ms Liang found herself in by virtue of the Guernsey legislation, the Deputy Bailiff found that she had only established that a part of the Trust funds were not the proceeds of crime. 

The Deputy Bailiff was critical of Ms Liang's reluctance to provide information (which she should have been capable of providing) to show that the funds were clean.  This is a useful reminder to any person who finds themselves in Ms Liang's position, or acting for them, to provide whatever information or documents they possibly can to establish the provenance of funds once a suspicion is properly raised.  The financial institution does not wish to be in the position any more than its client, and would welcome the opportunity to have the "no consent" lifted by the FIS.  Taking a defiant or uncooperative approach can only lead to the position in which Ms Liang found herself; i.e. a costly and time consuming court action.

Apart from confirming that the private law action is the appropriate approach, perhaps the most interesting or useful finding in the judgment was in relation to the burden of proof.  The judgment did not make new law on this point, but rather confirmed the current position as set out in the Deputy Bailiff's previous decision in Jakob International Inc. v HSBC Private Bank (CI) Limited3

In Jakob, the Deputy Bailiff concluded that a defendant (ie. the financial institution) first has the burden of establishing its suspicion to justify not following the client's instructions.  Once a defendant has demonstrated that suspicion, the burden of proof then shifts to the plaintiff (ie the client) to establish on the balance of probabilities that the provenance of the funds are not the proceeds of crime.

At trial, Ms Liang's advocate sought to revisit the Deputy Bailiff's finding in Jakob by arguing that the whole of the burden in the proceedings should fall on a defendant.  That is, a defendant should not only have to prove reasonable suspicion, but also prove that the provenance of the funds were the proceeds of crime. 

The Deputy Bailiff gave this argument short shrift, and accepted the arguments of RBC's advocate (Mark Dunster of Carey Olsen) that this would place an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on a defendant.  A defendant as a financial institution does not have the investigatory powers of a regulatory authority, and does not possess (or have access to) the information that the plaintiff does in relation to the provenance of the funds.


Accordingly, what lessons can be taken away following Liang?

  • Where a financial institution or an MLRO thinks there is a possibility (which is more than fanciful) that a relevant fact exists giving rise to the suspicion, then that is sufficient for an SAR to be lodged.
  • When faced with a financial institution refusing to allow access to funds on the basis of a "no consent" from the FIS, it is on a client to be as forthright and cooperative as they can to show that the provenance of funds are clean.  If the funds are clean, nothing is achieved by being secretive as to their source.
  • The MLRO's role does not end with the lodging of the SAR.  He or she must continually review the matter and whether it is remains reasonable to hold the suspicion.
  • A MLRO must be prepared to attend Court and be cross-examined about the basis of his or her suspicion.  An organisation must bear this in mind when appointing a MLRO, to ensure that the person selected is capable and robust enough to stand up in Court.
  • The organisation must have legal representation who are not only aware of the commercial/regulatory position, but also have sufficient trial experience to be able to meaningfully cross-examine the client and any other witnesses called.  This is necessary to both protect the organisation about the making of the SAR, and also to fulfil the duty to the Court to test the client's evidence.

Carey Olsen's Mark Dunster and Simon Florance successfully represented RBC throughout the proceedings, including at trial.


The Chief Officer, Customs & Excise, Immigration & Nationality Service v Garnet Investments Limited (6 July 2011)

2  Ibid.

3 1 July 2016

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions