Government of Jersey

Moneyval and asset-freeze proposals (FOI)

Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by Government of Jersey and published on 10 December 2024.
Prepared internally, no external costs.

Request

In its Fifth Round Mutual Evaluation Report (page 117), MONEYVAL recorded that "the Jersey authorities did make a number of asset-freeze proposals to the UK under the Russia sanctions regime".

Please provide information about how many such proposals were made in the period 1 March 2022 to 31 May 2022 (inclusive).

Please provide information about which "Jersey authorities" made these proposals.

Please provide information about: (a) how many individuals the Jersey authorities proposed should be designated under the Russia sanctions regime, in the period 1 March 2022 to 31 May 2022 (inclusive); and (b) how many of these individuals were Jersey residents.

Please provide a copy of all such proposals made in the period 1 March 2022 to 31 May 2022 (inclusive).

Please provide information about which Jersey Government department informed MONEYVAL about such proposals.

Please provide a copy of the information provided to MONEYVAL about such proposals.

Response

The SPA is only willing to confirm that a number of asset-freezing designation proposals were made during the course of 2022. It will not disclose the requested additional details as to the number of such proposals that were made or provide a more detailed breakdown of the dates any such proposals were made.

The following Articles of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 (FOI Law) have been applied.

Article 41 (International relations):

Disclosure of the requested information would be likely to prejudice the Jersey-United Kingdom relationship relating to the implementation of sanctions / asset-freezing designation proposal process and has been exempted under FOI Law Article 41(1) (a).

Further, the release of the requested information, provided on a confidential basis could also set an unhelpful precedent for future requests and would be likely to prejudice relations with other governments, as well as international organisations, such as the United Nations, who are responsible for certain sanctions and accordingly disclosure of this information may also be exempt under FOI Law Article 41(1) (b) and Article 41(1) (c).

Public Interest Test

It is recognised that there is a degree of public interest in providing transparency about the sanctions process in Jersey.

However, Jersey’s standing / relations with the UK, other countries and international organisations such as the United Nations in part turns upon its ability to engage in free and frank exchanges of certain information and gather other countries views about certain matters and the extent to which Jersey is considered / seen to be cooperating with others on such matters (including but not limited to sanctions and asset freeze discussions).

The effective conduct of Jersey’s external relations depends upon maintaining the trust and confidence of other jurisdictions and international organisations. These exceptions allow a safe space for the free and frank exchange of information between the Jersey and its partners. In turn this allows Jersey to effectively protect and promote its interests abroad.

Having considered the public interest, it has been concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information at this time is outweighed by the public interest considerations in withholding the information.

The Minister for External Relations is responsible for making asset-freezing designation proposals under UN and autonomous UK sanctions regimes.

Article 10 (2)

As allowed by FOI law Article 10 paragraph (2), we neither confirm nor deny whether the SPA holds any information relating to whether any individuals have been proposed for designation under the Russia sanctions regime, in the period 1 March 2022 to 31 May 2022.

Having considered the circumstances and conducted relevant tests we are satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest for the SPA to neither confirm nor deny whether they hold any information relating to individuals in response to this request, and it is not in the public interest to disclose whether the sanctions /asset freeze proposals related to natural or legal persons.

As above, as allowed by FOI law Article 10 paragraph (2), and having conducted the relevant tests the SPA neither confirms nor denies whether any individuals have been proposed for designation under the Russia sanctions regime, in the period 1 March 2022 to 31 May 2022 or therefore whether a copy of any reports on such individuals can be provided.

Article 33 (Commercial interests)

Disclosure would be likely to damage the confidence officers have in being able to perform their duties, and accordingly Government’s commercial interests.

Officers need to have ongoing confidence that when developing submissions for the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEYVAL) and / or providing MONEYVAL with written and verbal information, the nature of the individuals / teams / departments submissions or discussions are not necessarily released to the public, unless this is warranted.

Article 41 (1) and 41(2) (International Relations)

Disclosure would be likely to prejudice relations between Jersey and MONEYVAL, which is a permanent monitoring body of the Council of Europe, and therefore Jersey’s interests abroad.

If Jersey were to adopt a different approach to other countries whereby it was to disclose otherwise confidential information about who supplied what to MONEYVAL on a confidential basis for the purpose of an assessment, then it would be likely to affect the way in which any future engagements with such organisations take place and ultimately may result in an inability to properly engage in these sorts of international assessments.

Such a lack of engagement would be likely to prejudice Jersey interests abroad or the promotion or protection by Jersey of any such interest, specifically in relation to the reputation of Jersey’s financial services industry.

Article 33 (Commercial interests):

It would damage the confidence officers have in being able to perform their duties if such confidential information were released.

Article 41 (International relations):

It would likely damage the relationship with MONEYVAL if this information were to be released. It may also damage relationship with the UK if information about these proposals is made publicly available.

Public Interest and Prejudice tests for Questions 5 and 6 and Articles 33 (Commercial Interests) and Article 41 (1) and (2) (International Relations).

On balance there does not seem to be a great deal of public interest in knowing which Department or other part of Government had any form of discussion with MONEYVAL which led MONEYVAL to record that "the Jersey authorities did make a number of asset-freeze proposals to the UK under the Russia sanctions regime" or precisely what information in this respect was provided to such organisation.

Whilst Jersey can choose to disclose any information and is mindful of its obligations under FOI law in this respect, to enable MONEYVAL assessments to be conducted efficiently and well, it is important that both:

• Officers have ongoing confidence that when developing submissions for MONEYVAL and / or providing MONEYVALthem with written and verbal information, the nature of the individuals / teams/ departments discussions or submissions will not necessarily be released to the public, unless this is really warranted; and

• that the UK, other countries and international organisations also have confidence that Jersey is adopting a broadly similar approach to its publication of details around the MONEYVAL process as is generally found elsewhere.

It is not believed that other jurisdictions generally publish information of the sort requested about their interactions with MONEYVAL. If Jersey were to adopt a more expansive approach to the publication of such details than is generally found elsewhere, particularly in relation to its publication of confidential information pertaining to confidential assessments or confidential discussion process, then it is likely that this would have a detrimental effect on the way in which Officers within Jersey deal with such matters and in relation to the way other countries and / or other international organisations such as Council of Europe deal with Jersey in relation to international matters.

On balance the public interest seems to weigh more heavily in favour of not publishing rather than publishing these requested details.

Article applied

Article 10 - Obligation of scheduled public authority to confirm or deny holding Information

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if –

(a) a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority; and

(b) the authority does not hold the information, it must inform the applicant accordingly.

(2) If a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority and –

(a) the information is absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information; or

(b) if the authority does not hold the information, the information would be absolutely exempt

information or qualified exempt information if it had held it,the authority may refuse to inform the applicant whether or not it holds the information if it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest to do so.

(3) If a scheduled public authority so refuses –

(a) it shall be taken for the purpose of this Law to have refused to supply the information requested on the ground that it is absolutely exempt information; and

(b) it need not inform the applicant of the specific ground upon which it is refusing the request or, if the authority does not hold the information, the specific ground upon which it would have refused the request had it held the information.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Article 41 -International relations

(1) Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice relations between Jersey and –

(a) the United Kingdom;

(b) a State other than Jersey;

(d) an international court.

(2) Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –

(a) any Jersey interests abroad; or

(b) the promotion or protection by Jersey of any such interest.

(3) Information is also qualified exempt information if it is confidential information obtained from –

(a) a State other than Jersey;

(b) an international organization; or

(4) In this Article, information obtained from a State, organization or court is confidential while –

(a) the terms on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidence; or

(b) the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State, organization or court to expect that it will be so held.

(5) In this Article –

“international court” means an international court that is not an international organization and that was established –

(a) by a resolution of an international organization of which the United Kingdom is a member; or

(b) by an international agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party;

“international organization” means an international organization whose members include any two or more States, or any organ of such an organization;

“State” includes the government of a State and any organ of its government, and references to a State other than Jersey include references to a territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is formally responsible.

Article 42 -Law enforcement

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –

(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, whether in respect of offences committed in Jersey or elsewhere;

(d) the assessment or collection of a tax or duty or of an imposition of a similar nature;

(e) the operation of immigration controls, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;

(f) the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained;

(g) the proper supervision or regulation of financial services; or

(h) the exercise, by the Jersey Financial Services Commission, of any function imposed on it

by any enactment.