Trust company held ‘not fit and proper’ agrees to cease trading

Thursday 2nd February 2012, 3:00PM GMT.

The JFSC’s director of enforcement Barry Faudemer

A LITANY of compliance failures has led to a trust company having to agree to cease trading.

Trustcorp Services Ltd and other associated businesses – but not Trustcorp Jersey Ltd – has been found by the regulator to be ‘not fit and proper’ to be registered for the conduct of trust company business.

Its five principals Michael Kenney-Herbert, David William Roberts, David Hill, William Thomas Davies and William Simpson have all been named as having exercised ‘seriously deficient’ corporate governance.

An investigation by the Jersey Financial Services Commission focused, albeit not solely, on business introduced to TSL by intermediaries based in the Far East.
Fitness

Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post.

Click here for subscription details.

Individual editions are also available online.

1
J-Cat

February 2, 2012 at 6:17 pm

I await Geoff Cook’s spin with anticipation..

Report abuse
- Overpopulated
  
  February 3, 2012 at 12:03 pm
  
  Add to this – there are currently 3 money laundering/fraud cases pending – A Brazilian mayor, Asil Nadair (not sure of spelling) and another one I cannot recall. And these are just the ones mentioned in the JEP.
  
  Squeaky clean?? I think not.
  
  Report abuse
2
Sporran

February 3, 2012 at 12:52 pm

So, a trust company was not fit and proper and has been closed down. If it’s five participants exercised seriously deficient corporate goverence, should they not (as individuals) be banned, and why are they not charged with anything? Sounds like another sweep it under the carpet job.

Report abuse
- Robert
  
  February 4, 2012 at 9:57 am
  
  If you read the full report from the JFSC, which is online for the world to read, you will see that they are not allowed to work in the industry without the JFSC approving…this is effectively a ban.
  
  Report abuse
3
Renegade

February 3, 2012 at 2:21 pm

It’s astonishing how people seem so preoccupied with the fear of getting their handbag snatched on a Friday night in town and take no interest in the much greater scope of crimes that occur in the light of day under our very noses.

Report abuse
4
anon

February 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Surely the spin will be to claim how strong the regulatory controls are in Jersey and how it supports our position in the world of legitimate Financial Centres …

I must say btw, to all those who think the Tax Justice Network and others are right in their view that Jersey and other offshore centres are all about inequitable tax practises and maintaining the rich-poor gap, that the same view could fairly be levelled against the onshore centres.

I figure Offshore is no better or worse than Onshore, and would opine that there is much corruption and dodgy dealing onshore as there is anywhere … we’re just doing what we can to make a living or increase our wealth and prosperity, just like everyone. Think of it as economic evolution.

Report abuse
5
Andy Kent

February 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm

If you read the Article carefully and the Public Statement issued in the Jersey Gazette, you will see that the Principal Persons have been banished from the industry in Jersey and their names blackened for eternity and for the world to see on the Commission’s web-site. Indeed, according to the Public Statement, it was the conduct of the Principals which prompted the investigation by the Commission.

No-one should consider that they have been “let off”. The effective resultant punishment will be much worse than any criminal custodial sentence ( where at least there might be a notion of rehabilitation). Within the closer community of Jersey not only will they be villified but their families also. Children will grow up with that stigma. Divorce and worse will be a bi-product of their condemnation.

Employees of the companies concerned may have not only lost their jobs but will be equally stigmatised.

However, it will not be a step the Commission has taken easily. It has a review and appeal procedure before a final decision is taken. It is unfortunate that the JEP chose to add a picture of Barry Faudemer – I am sure he derived no pleasure from what has taken place – he and the rest at the Commission are just doing their job in sending the message out to the world that Jersey does police its finance industry – whether there are inconsistencies and whether the true extent of the “punishment” is fully appreciated are different matters, upon which no doubt the Commission will reflect.

Report abuse
6
Trojan

February 7, 2012 at 11:12 am

How about looking at some of the “seriously deficient” corporate governance in the States and the Civil Service which consistently looses taxpayers money?

Report abuse