Owen, Christopher: Global Survey – February 2022

21 December 2021, the Federal Court of Australia held that arrangements involving distributions of trust income to a corporate beneficiary, which in turn distributed dividends back to the trust, did not constitute a “reimbursement agreement” for the purposes of s100A of the Income Tax Assessment Act (ITAA) 1936 because the arrangements were part of ordinary family or commercial dealings.

In Guardian AIT Pty Ltd ATF Australian Investment Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] FCA 1619, the taxpayer was a Canadian named Alexander Springer, who had moved to Australia many years ago and built up a substantial property business.

In 2012, Springer restructured his business affairs pending retirement. He incorporated a new company, AIT Corporate Services Pty Ltd (AITCS), which was wholly owned by an Australian discretionary trust called Australian Investment Trust (AIT). The sole trustee of AIT was a corporate body called Guardian AIT, of which Springer was the sole shareholder, while AITCS was made a beneficiary of the trust.

Soon after the incorporation, the trustee made AITCS entitled to the net income of the AIT amounting to approximately AUD2.6 million. Similar arrangements were followed during the 2013 and 2014 tax years through which almost AUD8 million in total was distributed by Guardian to AITCS, which paid corporation tax on these distributions at the capped rate of 30%. The after-tax amounts were paid as franked dividends back to the trust and then distributed tax-free to Springer, who had ceased to be resident in Australia and was living in Vanuatu. Under withholding tax provisions, the trustee was also not liable for any tax.

In November 2017, the Commissioner of Taxation issued amended assessments including administrative penalties to AIT in respect of the 2012, 2013 and 2014 tax years. If AIT had distributed its income directly to Springer, the Australian Tax Office (ATO) would have been able to collect an additional 17% on the trust distribution.

It argued that the scheme mounted to a ‘reimbursement agreement’ under s.100A of the ITAA 1936 and had been set up so that the taxpayer could avoid paying tax on the amounts he received at non-resident tax rates. It considered that AIT was liable to income tax under s99A(4A) of the ITAA 1936 on the basis that s100A applied. Across the 2012 to 2014 income years, AIT’s tax liability amounted to AUD5.5 million, including a 50% penalty.

Springer and AIT both challenged the amended assessments. The Commissioner disallowed the challenges, so they appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Federal Court, challenging the ATO's interpretation of the phrase 'reimbursement agreement' in s.100A. They argued that there was no reimbursement agreement because there was no plan or expectation that AITCS would declare a dividend back to the AIT at any point before the AIT distributed trust income to AITCS.

The Court held that for there to be a reimbursement agreement it must precede the present entitlement of income. On the evidence at trial, it found that there was no plan or understanding at any time preceding AIT’s distribution to AITCS that AITCS would declare a franked dividend, stating “there is just no support for this in the contemporaneous evidence”.

“A hypothetical contingency open in law but never considered is not sufficient to yield that,” it said. “It is only many months later that even the possibility of the declaring of a dividend by AITCS emerges. The requisite temporal sequence is lacking. There is no ‘relevant connection’.”

Because AITCS was made presently entitled to AIT’s income before making any decision or plan to declare a franked dividend, the Court found there could be no reimbursement agreement. It further observed that even if there was an agreement, the arrangement would be excluded from the definition of ‘agreement’ in s.100A because it was an ordinary family and commercial dealing.

“In this particular case, the incorporation of AITCS, its appointment as a member of the eligible beneficiary class and the resolution to make a distribution to it of trust income were each nothing more than an ordinary family or commercial dealing,” said the judgment.

The Commissioner also issued Springer with an alternative assessment under the general anti-avoidance provisions in Part IVA of the ITAA, arguing that the arrangements had been undertaken with the dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit, namely the absence of ‘top up tax’ on the distribution to Springer, which was not subject to any additional tax because it was non-assessable non-exempt income.

The Court concluded that there was no tax benefit and that the dominant purpose of the arrangement was not to obtain a tax benefit but “was always, on and from 27 June 2012, the minimisation of risk to Mr Springer in retirement and having a new corporate beneficiary in AIT’s eligibility class to which distributions might be made instead of to an individual and which might, into the indefinite future, serve as a vehicle for wealth accumulation and passive investment. This was always the ‘ruling, prevailing or most influential purpose’.”

The Federal Court further ordered the Commissioner to pay the applicant’s costs on an indemnity basis because it had failed to accept an offer of compromise made by the taxpayer in June 2020 and the judgment was more favourable to the taxpayer than the offer of compromise.

The full judgment of the Federal Court of Australia can be accessed at https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2021/2021fca1619

12 January 2022, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) announced that it is conducting a review of its advance pricing arrangement (APA) programme. The review will commence early in 2022 and will explore how to “tailor the APA experience across the full spectrum of potential risks encountered during an APA engagement”.

“We remain committed to the APA service and always look for opportunities to improve, ensuring it aligns with our broader objectives and market guidance,” said the ATO in a statement.

The review will primarily focus on whether the APA product continues to be providing the right service for all taxpayers and whether it is assuring transfer pricing risk in the most efficient manner possible. It will also consider how to tailor the APA process to better align to risk and taxpayer behavioural indicators.

The ATO said it expected to consult extensively with taxpayers and advisors as part of the process to understand:

• The market perspectives of the APA product.
• Why it is appealing.
• What arrangements / transactions are viewed as most desirable for an APA.

31 December 2021, the Barbados government brought the Income Tax (Country-by-Country Reporting) Act 2021 into force following its publication in the Official Gazette on 24 December. The new reporting requirement applies to fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2022.

The law, which implements Action 13 of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, imposes a country-by-country reporting requirement on multinational groups in Barbados that have group revenues of more than USD850 million. The reports are due no later than 12 months after the last day of the reporting fiscal year of the multinational group.

17 January 2022, the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) released its 2022 Business Plan setting out its objectives and initiatives for the year ahead.

Policies include completing the introduction of an enhanced investment business framework, implementing conduct supervision frameworks within the banking and insurance sectors, and consulting on:

• The introduction of such frameworks in the digital asset business and investment sectors.
• Proposed enhancements to the trust and corporate service provider regulatory frameworks.
• Proposed enhancements to enforcement powers within the investment fund framework.

Other headline initiatives for 2022 include:

• Augmenting the BMA’s prudential regulatory regimes with a market conduct framework designed to further foster financial services consumer protection.
• The further roll-out of the newly introduced Anti-Money Laundering/Anti-Terrorist Financing Service Provider Training course and the associated advanced track licensing programme.
• The continued opening up of the innovation hub and sandbox across financial services sectors.
• Joint regulatory technology pilots with industry.
• The integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations into the regulatory regimes.
• The modernisation of specific legislation within the investment business and banks and deposit companies’ regimes.

In 2022, the BMA will continue to work with the Registrar of Companies to support the Beneficial Ownership Task Force, helping to ensure the successful implementation of the public register for the beneficial ownership regime in Bermuda.

The primary focus of the BMA’s AML/ATF Department will be the execution of core supervisory oversight responsibilities, comprising the on-site inspection programme, selected thematic reviews and close monitoring of relevant sectors and specific regulated financial institutions. The BMA will continue its significant support of.

In collaboration with members of Bermuda’s National Anti-Money Laundering Committee (NAMLC), a key priority in the first half of the year will be to present Bermuda’s follow-up report to the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) Plenary in May. This report is a mandated key milestone in the mutual evaluation methodology and provides the opportunity for Bermuda to highlight its progress since the publication of its mutual evaluation in January 2020.

To access the BMA’s 2022 Business Plan, please visit https://www.bma.bm/publications/business-plan

18 January 2022, Governor of the British Virgin Islands John Rankin, delivering the annual Speech from the Throne to open a new session of the House of Assembly, announced a package of major financial services legislation to be introduced in 2022.

The BVI Business Companies (Amendment) Act 2022 will mainly address issues surrounding struck-off companies, abolition of bearer shares, and record-keeping measures. The reforms will also include amendments to require persons wishing to act as voluntary liquidators of BVI business companies to be either licensed insolvency practitioners or persons resident in the BVI and holding specific qualifications and skills. Amendments will also be made to Schedule 1 of the Act by reviewing and, as necessary, enhancing the registry fees regime.

The Virtual Assets Service Providers Act 2022 will introduce new legislation to provide a regime for the registration of providers of virtual assets services and better enhance the BVI’s international obligations to prevent the misuse of virtual assets for money laundering, terrorist financing or proliferation financing purposes.

In addition, appropriate legislative reforms will continue to be carried out to the Anti-money Laundering Regulations 2008 and the Anti-money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Code of Practice 2008 to ensure that the BVI fully meets its technical obligations under the FATF Recommendations in preparation for the CFATF mutual evaluation which is expected to commence later this year.

The Proceeds of Criminal Conduct (Amendment) Act will seek to amend the Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Act 1997, to make provisions for unexplained wealth orders.

The International Tax Authority (ITA) proposes amendments to the Mutual Legal Assistance (Tax Matters) Act 2003 (MLA) to ensure that the BVI continues to meet its obligations in relation to exchange of information by:

• Repealing the EU Taxation on Savings Income, which has now been phased out and replaced by the Common Reporting Standards.
• Reintroducing the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) requirements in the principal Act and amending the compliance powers of the ITA to ensure consistency with the FATCA obligations.
• Provide minor amendments to other provisions of the principal Act to ensure that the BVI can effectively and efficiently exchange information under various international obligations.

The ITA also propose an amendment to the International Tax Authority Act 2018 to streamline the powers of the ITA, ensuring that the ITA can efficiently and effectively carry out its compliance functions under the Economic Substance (Companies and Limited Partnerships) Act 2018 and under the MLA.

The Financial Services (Fees) Regulations 2022 will be brought forward and will provide a comprehensive review of all the regulatory fees with the view to enhancing some of the existing fees and, where considered necessary, to introduce new regulatory fees.

The Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2022 will reduce the inherent conflict between the role of the Office of the Official Receiver and the role of the Financial Services Commission (FSC) as the regulator of the financial services sector by transferring the portfolio of Official Receiver from the FSC to the Ministry of Finance. It will streamline the provisions of the Act with those of the BVI Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to better address issues relating to banks that may fall into financial distress, where necessary. This will be aimed at ensuring better protection for consumers of financial services business.

The Financial Services Commission (Amendment) Act 2022 will aim to carry out further reforms to deal with exceptional circumstances that affect the financial services sector. It is designed to ensure a faster process for decision-making, to properly align the provisions of the Act with those of the Financial Services (Exceptional Circumstances) Act 2020, and to address how banks and insurance companies function during catastrophic natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and pandemics, inclusive of their procedures and applied costs.

The Banks and Trust Companies (Amendment) Act 2022 will streamline the provisions of the Act with those of the BVI Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to better address issues relating to banks and other key financial institutions that may fall into financial distress. This will be aimed at ensuring better protection for consumers of financial services business.

The BVI Deposit Insurance Corporation Act of 2016 established the Corporation with the legal mandate to be the deposit insurer and resolution authority in the BVI. As such, the Corporation is created with administrative and technical autonomy to perform its duties in a manner that benefits the public interest and avoids duplication of functions with the FSC, the regulator and supervisor of financial institutions.

To enable the Corporation's legal mandate, a regulatory framework has been drafted to bring to life the Deposit Insurance System and the Special Resolution Regime. In the process of building the enabling regulatory framework, opportunities were identified to ensure proper implementation of these two new functions of the BVI financial safety net, namely, deposit insurance and resolution.

The Financial Services Appeal Board Act will also be amended, to address issues highlighted by the pandemic in enabling the efficient and smooth running of the appeal process for the benefit of both the FSC and appellants.

24 January 2022, Cayman Islands Minister of Financial Services André Ebanks issued a statement addressing the likely consequences to the financial services sector from its expected inclusion on the European Union’s ‘blacklist’ of 'high-risk third countries' identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regimes.

The European Commission adopted a draft Delegated Regulation proposing to add nine countries to the blacklist – the Cayman Islands, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Jordan, Mali, Morocco, the Philippines, Senegal, and South Sudan.

The draft Delegated Regulation will be submitted to the European Council and the European Parliament for approval. If neither institution objects, it will then be published in the Official Journal of the EU and will enter into force 20 days after publication. The EU is expected to finalise its list within a few weeks.

In March 2019 the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, which provides regional support for the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), recommended 63 actions for the Cayman Islands to complete to further strengthen its anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime.

By February 2021, the Cayman Islands had completed 60 of these actions but the FATF placed it on its list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring – often referred to as the ‘grey list’ ­– and issued it with an action plan to complete the remaining three items. When the FATF lists a country, the EU automatically adds it to its list of non-cooperative jurisdictions.

The FATF plan required the Cayman Islands to demonstrate effective and dissuasive sanctions for AML breaches and for beneficial ownership filing breaches by January this year, and to demonstrate AML prosecutions by this May. During its October 2021 plenary, the FATF acknowledged the Cayman Islands’ progress in completing the plan. The Cayman Islands is now either ‘compliant’ or ‘largely compliant’ with all 40 FATF Recommendations.

The Ministry of Financial Services said: “By progressing to completion the FATF plan, thereby addressing remaining AML issues with our regime, the Cayman Islands intends to be removed from the list of jurisdictions the FATF is monitoring for AML effectiveness; and from an expected listing by the EU, as a non-EU country considered to be at high risk for AML.”

To be delisted by the EU, however, any actions the EU may add on top of the FATF action plan would also need to be completed. The Ministry of Financial Services said a FATF delisting should substantially, if not fully, assist with an EU delisting but it set out the following implications of an EU listing.

“In accordance with the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), an EU listing currently would not affect Cayman Islands’ investment funds from being marketed in the EU. However, the Cayman Islands government is aware of the EU’s proposed AIFMD amendments which, if enacted as expected in 2024, would prevent Cayman Islands funds from being marketed in the EU.

“At this time EU listing will, in accordance with the EU Securitisation Regulation enacted in 2021, prohibit EU financial institutions from using Cayman Islands’ entities for securitisations. Minister Ebanks is in direct contact with the Cayman Islands’ leading industry practitioners in this sub-sector to provide appropriate updates and guidance.

“An EU listing also will require EU financial institutions to conduct enhanced due diligence on business relationships and transactions involving non-EU listed jurisdictions. This may include obtaining additional information on customers, beneficial owners, and the source of funds and wealth; and selecting patterns of transactions that need further examination,” said the Ministry.

To determine the timeline, and any necessary additional actions, for an EU delisting, Minister Ebanks said he and his officials will continue to engage with EU officials, including those they met either face-to-face or virtually in November and December 2021.

7 January 2022, the European Commission adopted a draft Delegated Regulation updating its ‘blacklist’ of 'high-risk third countries' identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regimes.

The Draft Regulation proposes to add nine countries to the blacklist – the Cayman Islands, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Jordan, Mali, Morocco, the Philippines, Senegal, and South Sudan – and to remove five currently listed countries – The Bahamas, Botswana, Ghana, Iraq and Mauritius.

The draft Delegated Regulation will be submitted to the European Council and the European Parliament for approval. If neither institution objects, it will then be published in the Official Journal of the EU and will enter into force 20 days after publication.

In May 2020, the Commission adopted a revised methodology for identifying high-risk third countries under article 9 of the Directive (EU) 2015/849. Its key new elements were an increased interaction with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) listing process, an enhanced engagement with the third countries, and reinforced consultation of member states and the European Parliament.

Since the last amendments to the EU blacklist, the Commission said the FATF had updated its own list of ‘Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring’ as follows:

• At its Plenary meeting of February 2021, the FATF added Burkina Faso, the Cayman Islands, Morocco, and Senegal.
• At its Plenary meeting of June 2021, the FATF added Haiti, the Philippines and South Sudan and deleted Ghana from its list.
• At its Plenary meeting of October 2021, the FATF added Jordan, Mali and Turkey and deleted Botswana and Mauritius from its list.

In addition, the Commission said it had finalised its assessment of The Bahamas and Iraq in line with its methodology for identifying high risk third countries, in the fourth quarter of 2021. It had concluded that The Bahamas and Iraq had addressed the strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime previously identified by the Commission. It therefore recommended that The Bahamas and Iraq should also be deleted from the EU blacklist.

“The FATF welcomed significant progress made by Botswana, Ghana and Mauritius in improving its AML/CFT regime and noted that Botswana, Ghana and Mauritius have established the legal and regulatory framework to meet the commitments in their action plans regarding the strategic deficiencies that the FATF had identified,” said the Commission in a statement.

“The Commission's analysis concludes that The Bahamas, Botswana, Ghana, Iraq and Mauritius no longer have strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regime considering the available information. The Bahamas, Botswana, Ghana, Iraq and Mauritius have strengthened the effectiveness of their AML/CFT regime. These measures are sufficiently comprehensive and meet the necessary requirements to consider that strategic deficiencies identified under article 9 of the Directive (EU) 2015/849 have been removed.”

“The government of Mauritius has reiterated its strong political commitment to sustain the AML/CFT reforms and the fight against money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The government has also made it clear that Mauritius and its regulators are committed to take bold actions that are required to protect the integrity of its financial systems, including the global business sector.”

In the case of Turkey, which was also publicly identified by the FATF as having strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT regime in October 2021, the Commission said the revised methodology allowed it to consider mitigating measures included in the accession negotiations with respect to its assessment of candidate countries.

In this context, the Commission had developed further mitigating measures with Turkey to ensure alignment with Directive (EU) 2015/849. Subject to the implementation of the commitments taken by Turkey, the Commission considered that those additional mitigating measures sufficiently addressed the remaining deficiencies. There was, therefore, no need to adopt further measures under article 9 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 at this stage.

The full European Commission Delegated Regulation can be viewed at https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5174-2022-INIT/en/pdf

12 January 2022, the European Commission proposed a partial suspension of the application of the agreement with the Republic of Vanuatu allowing citizens of Vanuatu to travel to the EU without a visa for stays of up to 90 days in any 180-period.

It said the move was necessary to mitigate the risks posed by Vanuatu's investor citizenship schemes on the security of the EU and its member states and followed extensive exchanges with the authorities of Vanuatu, including prior warnings of the possibility of suspension.

The investor citizenship schemes allow citizens of third countries to obtain Vanuatu citizenship – and visa-free access to the EU ­– in exchange for a minimum investment of USD130,000.

Based on careful monitoring of the schemes and information received from Vanuatu, the Commission had concluded that Vanuatu's investor citizenship schemes present serious deficiencies and security failures, with:

• The granting of citizenship to applicants listed on Interpol's databases, which raised concerns about the reliability of the security screening.
• An average application processing time too short to allow for thorough screening.
• No systematic exchange of information with the applicants' country of origin or main past residence before citizenship was granted.
• A very low rejection rate – only one application was rejected up until 2020.
• The countries of origin of successful applicants include countries that are visa-required for the EU, with some that are typically excluded from other citizenship schemes.

As a result, Vanuatu's investor citizenship schemes allow individuals who would otherwise need a visa to travel to the EU to bypass the regular Schengen visa procedure and the in-depth assessment of individual migratory and security risks it entails.

Additionally, investor citizenship schemes operated by Vanuatu since 2015 are commercially promoted with the expressed purpose of granting visa-free access to the EU, while the visa waiver agreement is not aimed at allowing visa-required travellers to circumvent the visa requirement by acquiring Vanuatu citizenship.

At meetings between the EU and Vanuatu held in April 2019 and April 2021, the EU had urged Vanuatu to immediately address possible risks of infiltration of organised crime, money laundering, tax evasion and corruption associated with investor citizenship schemes. No substantial amendments were made to the schemes and, in April 2021 the Vanuatu government even took additional steps to set up a new citizenship programme.

The Commission said it had concluded on this basis that Vanuatu's investor citizenship schemes present heightened risks for the security of the EU and its member states and was therefore proposing a partial and proportionate suspension of the visa waiver agreement.

The suspension would be applicable to all holders of ordinary passports issued as of 25 May 2015, when Vanuatu started issuing a substantial number of passports in exchange for investment. These holders would therefore no longer be allowed to travel to the EU without a visa but would retain the possibility to apply for a visa to visit the EU.

The European Council must now examine the proposal. If it decides to partially suspend the visa waiver agreement, Vanuatu should be notified at least two months before the suspension is applied. During the period of partial suspension, the Commission must establish an enhanced dialogue with Vanuatu, with a view to eliminating or substantially mitigating the security risks. Should Vanuatu introduce sufficient measures to this effect, the partial suspension should be lifted.

7 January 2022, the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (FSA) announced that, following an investigation into Standard Bank Isle of Man Limited, it had identified serious regulatory failings and had imposed a discretionary civil penalty of £353,320.

It said the level of the penalty, which was discounted by 30% to £247,324, reflected the fact that Standard had co-operated and agreed settlement at an early stage through the FSA’s Enforcement Decision-Making Process.

In April 2021 Standard discovered that, in September 2020, it had acted in breach of the terms of a Restraint Order issued by the Isle of Man Courts under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2008. The Order had restrained, inter alia, the disposal, diminution, removal from the jurisdiction of, and dealing with, funds in respect of specified bank accounts in the name of a client of Standard.

Standard had immediately notified the Authority in relation to its obligations under Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) legislation, and the Financial Services Rule Book 2016.

The breach of the Court Order involved two stages: enabling the transfer of funds between the Restrained Accounts within Standard; and processing an instruction from the client for further transfer of funds to another Standard Bank group entity out of the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man.

The Authority, upon reviewing the notification alongside other information, determined that it should exercise powers under Schedule 2 to the Act to investigate Standard’s compliance with AML/CFT legislation. This investigation was notified to Standard in May 2021.

The FSA found that Standard’s ‘preventative controls’ against a specific client and / or specific accounts differed between third-party transactions and intragroup transactions. Standard only identified the issue in April 2021 when the client requested a third-party transaction.

It also found that Standard did not have adequate ‘detective controls’ in place to identify the issue in a timely way. This was evidenced by the fact that the Court Order was breached in September 2020, but Standard did not identify the breach until April 2021, when the funds were promptly returned in full to the Restrained Accounts.

The failings resulted in a number of breaches of the Financial Services Rule Book 2016 amd also resulted in Standard contravening paragraph 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Code 2019. The FSA said it considered these to be serious regulatory failings.

It was satisfied, however, that Standard had cooperated fully and engaged positively with the EDMP and that the directors of Standard at the relevant time had taken full responsibility for the issues identified. At the date of the settlement agreement, Standard had confirmed that its operational controls have been enhanced to prevent any similar breach occurring.

“The Authority is satisfied that the imposition of the Civil Penalty on Standard appropriately reflects the serious nature of the non-compliance by Standard and the importance the Authority places on all parties in the regulated sector, in particular banks who are critical gatekeepers, complying with all elements of AML/CFT legislation,” said the FSA.

28 January 2022, the government of Jersey launched a consultation on the creation of a ‘failure-to-prevent’ money laundering and terrorist financing offence, which would be brought into effect via an amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. It would be a corporate criminal offence that captures the activity of regulated businesses.

The Jersey government said the new offence would address some issues arising from the identification doctrine and enable a more appropriate attribution of criminal liability with regards to corporate bodies. Introduction was considered necessary to enhance the overall effectiveness of its anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) enforcement and the dissuasiveness of the sanctions available to the Royal Court.

It said the increase in effectiveness could be achieved without extending existing requirements or introducing any new requirements for the AML-regulated sector, because the requirements to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing already existed, but the introduction of failure-to-prevent offences like the UK would create new obligations.

Considering the different stages of the money laundering process and given that Jersey was more exposed to the layering stage, the introduction of the offence was considered beneficial to enable prosecutions consistent with the country’s threats and risk profile, in line with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Methodology. The consultation will close on 21 February 2022.

31 January 2022, Revenue Jersey is consulting on the proposals to change the way it interacts with partnerships and their partners following the introduction of the economic substance reporting requirements. The deadline for comments is 31 March.

The Taxation (Economic Substance – Partnership) (Jersey) Law came into force on 1 July 2021. It requires all partnerships in Jersey to make a declaration as to whether they are within scope of economic substance, and if so, assess whether they meet the economic substance test.

Revenue Jersey said this was also an opportunity to review the Jersey income tax reporting requirements for partnerships “to create efficiencies for both partnerships and Revenue Jersey”.

It is proposing that, as from 1 January 2023, all partnerships established or tax resident in Jersey would need to submit an annual combined notification online, which would disclose applicable tax and economic substance information. Other tax filings, such as goods and services tax (GST) returns would remain unchanged. Information to be included on the return would include:

• Name of partnership.
• Activities of partnership.
• Total partnership turnover.
• Partnership profits.

In the case of a Jersey established but non-resident partnership, the combined notification would confirm that the partnership is non-Jersey resident, as per the definition in the partnership economic substance legislation.

Joint assessment of general partnerships would be discontinued, and all partners would need to report their own shares of taxable partnership income within their respective Jersey income tax returns.

21 December 2021, the Minister for Treasury and Resource lodged the Draft Taxation (Enveloped Property Transactions) (Jersey) Law, which will introduce a new ‘enveloped property transactions tax’ (EPTT) on property purchases made through a corporate entity, in the States Assembly for debate.

If adopted, the Draft Law will introduce an EPTT to relevant transactions where:

• The entity, or any entity over which it has control, is the beneficial owner of the enveloped property; and
• The transferor (owner) of the entity transfers to a person (the transferee) a ‘significant interest’ in the entity.

A ‘significant interest’ is defined as more than 50% of the interest in the entity. A significant interest will also arise where there is a chain of companies and a significant interest is transferred through a chain of control, to a person.

EPTT is one-off charge imposed where the land has a market value exceeding £700,000 for commercial properties and £500,000 for residential properties. This will be calculated using market value bands, mirroring those used for Stamp Duty and Land Transaction Tax (LTT). The rates charged will increase progressively with the value of the property.

Accordingly, the top rate for commercial properties will be £59,500 in respect of the first £2 million plus 5% on any sums above, and the top rate for domestic properties will be £429,500 in respect of the first £6 million plus 10.5 % on any sums above.

The Draft Law will also amend the LTT Law (Taxation (Land Transactions) (Jersey) Law 2009) expanding the scope to include relevant transactions of commercial properties by share transfer. Further amendments are proposed to the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 to require receipt relating to relevant transactions to be provided in line with the Draft Law and the Revenue Administration (Jersey) Law 2019 which are consequential on the new provision of EPTT.

Any transaction that is subject to Stamp Duty or to LTT will not be subject to the proposed EPTT charge. Schedule 1 of the Draft Law also sets out further specific exemptions, including:

• Devolution of an estate (essentially the winding-up of an estate).
• Any transactions that take place by order of the court, such as during divorce proceedings.
• The transferee is a tax-exempt charity.
• The transferee is a tax-exempt Social Housing Company.
• The transferee is a Minister, or one of the Parishes.
• Transactions where the beneficial owner of the property remains the same or transfers from a nominee to a beneficial owner.

The draft law is now before Jersey's legislature and, if approved, will then require UK Privy Council approval. It is likely to be brought into force in April 2022.

20 January 2022, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) imposed a composition penalty of SGD1.1 million (approx. USD817,000) on Vistra Trust (Singapore) for its failures to comply with MAS’ Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements.

Vistra is a trust company, licensed under the Trust Companies Act, whose business activities include the creation of trusts and provision of trustee services. An MAS inspection carried out from April 2019 to June 2019 uncovered serious breaches of AML/CFT requirements for trust companies, placing it at a higher risk of being used as a conduit for illicit activities.

The failures were particularly in relation to higher risk trust relevant parties, such as the settlor, the beneficiary, the trustee, and any person who has power over the disposition of a trust property. Vistra did not implement adequate procedures to determine if trust relevant parties presented a higher risk for money laundering (ML) or terrorism financing (TF). This resulted in Vistra failing to identify certain higher risk accounts and subjecting these accounts to enhanced customer due diligence (CDD) measures, both during account acquisition as well as on an ongoing basis.

Specifically, VTSPL did not establish the settlors’ source of wealth and source of funds and failed to obtain VTSPL’s senior management’s approval to establish or continue business contact with these higher risk accounts.

Vistra has paid the penalty and taken remedial actions to address the risk management deficiencies that led to the breaches. MAS has directed Vistra to appoint an independent party to validate the adequacy and effectiveness of its remediation measures and report its findings to MAS.

MAS Assistant Managing Director (Policy, Payments & Financial Crime) Loo Siew Yee said: “A specific area of risk relates to trust structures being abused by criminals to conceal illicit proceeds. Boards and senior management of trust companies must ensure that higher risk trust accounts are identified and subject to robust ML/TF controls. MAS will take strong actions against any financial institution that fails to meet our regulatory standards for anti-money laundering.”

24 January 2022, the OECD claimed further progress in combatting base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) following new outcomes on the review of preferential tax regimes, while new peer review reports on Mutual Agreement Procedures have been approved by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS.

At its November 2021 meeting, the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) agreed new decisions on nine preferential tax regimes as part of the implementation of the BEPS Action 5 minimum standard, bringing the total number of reviewed regimes since the start of the BEPS Project to 317.

The FHTP concluded that two newly introduced regimes in Hong Kong (China) and Lithuania were ‘not harmful’. Mauritius had abolished two ‘harmful’ regimes and Qatar had amended three preferential regimes to be in line with the standard. These regimes were no longer harmful.

Costa Rica had committed to amend recent legislative changes that were made to its Free trade zone regime. This regime was now “in the process of being amended”. Finally, one new regime was now under review in Albania.

The Stage 2 peer review monitoring reports of the BEPS Action 14 minimum standard had evaluated the progress made by Brunei Darussalam, Curaçao, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Monaco, San Marino and Serbia in implementing recommendations resulting from their Stage 1 peer review.

The reviews considered any developments in the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2020 and built on the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) statistics for 2016 to 2020. All the eight jurisdictions had issued or updated their MAP guidance.

The Multilateral Instrument had been both signed and ratified by Curaçao, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Monaco, San Marino and Serbia, bringing a substantial number of their treaties into line with the Action 14 minimum standard. There were also bilateral negotiations either ongoing or concluded.

Brunei Darussalam, Curaçao, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Monaco and San Marino now all had a documented bilateral notification/consultation process that they applied in cases where an objection was considered as being not justified by their competent authority.

Curaçao, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Serbia had all closed MAP cases within the target average time of 24 months, whereas the remaining jurisdictions had no MAP experience.

Brunei Darussalam, Curaçao, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Monaco and San Marino had all ensured that MAP agreements could always be implemented notwithstanding domestic time limits.

The OECD will continue to publish Stage 2 peer review reports in batches. In total, 82 Stage 1 peer review reports and 60 Stage 1 and Stage 2 peer monitoring reports have now been published, with the ninth batch of Stage 2 reports to be released in a few months.

20 January 2022, the OECD released the 2022 edition of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, which provide guidance on the application of the ‘arm’s length principle’ and represent the international consensus on the valuation, for income tax purposes, of cross-border transactions between associated enterprises.

The latest edition consolidates into a single publication the changes to the 2017 edition of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines resulting from:

• The report Revised Guidance on the Transactional Profit Split Method, approved by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) on 4 June 2018, which replaced the guidance in Chapter II, Section C (paragraphs 2.114-2.151) found in the 2017 Transfer Pricing Guidelines and Annexes II and III to Chapter II.
• The report Guidance for Tax Administrations on the Application of the Approach to Hard-to-Value Intangibles, approved by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on 4 June 2018, which has been incorporated as Annex II to Chapter VI.
• The report Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions, adopted by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on 20 January 2020, which has been incorporated into Chapter I (new Section D.1.2.2) and in a new Chapter X.
• The consistency changes to the rest of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines needed to produce this consolidated version of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, which were approved by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on 7 January 2022.

24 January 2022, the Ministry of Investment Saudi Arabia (MISA) issued new guidance in respect of its Regional Headquarter (RHQ) Programme, which incentivises companies to set up their regional headquarters in Saudi Arabia by obtaining an RHQ business licence.

Last February, the government announced: “The Kingdom of Saudi of Arabia intends to cease contracting with companies and commercial institutions with regional headquarters not located in the Kingdom. The cessation will include agencies, institutions and funds owned by the government and will take effect 1 January 2024.”

According to the new guidance, an RHQ is defined as “a unit of a multinational group that is duly established under the laws of Saudi Arabia for the purpose of supporting, managing and providing strategic direction to its branches, subsidiaries and affiliates operating in the MENA region.”

It will act as the centre of administrative power for the multinational group over the MENA region and is required to have at least two subsidiaries or branches located in two different countries other than Saudi Arabia and its country of incorporation.

An RHQ is not intended to conduct any commercial (revenue generating) operations. Any commercial activities in Saudi must be conducted by group affiliates holding a valid Service, Commercial or Industrial Licence, or any MISA licence suitable for commercial operations.

An RHQ must provide mandatory RHQ Licence activities, including ‘strategic direction’ and ‘management function’ activities, to branches, subsidiaries and/or affiliates within the multinational group, as well as at least three optional RHQ Licence activities.

A multinational group is required to start RHQ operations within six months of its licence being granted and should establish at least three ‘optional activities’ during the first year of the licence operation. An RHQ is also required to have 15 full-time employees within the first year, of which at least three must be at a corporate executive level – CEO, CFO, vice-president or equivalent.

A unit of a multinational group that is duly established as an RHQ under the laws of Saudi Arabia will enjoy the following benefits:

• 10-year exemption from the ‘Saudization’ regime
• Spousal work permits and the age of dependents extended to 25-years-old
• Waiver of Professional Accreditation rules
• Visa limit exemption and issuance acceleration
• End-to-end services (Business, Personal & Concierge)
• Government Tendering
• KAFD SEZ with additional incentives (estimated Q1 2022)
• Government tendering after 2024

Additional incentives will be available for RHQs established in the King Abdullah Financial District (KAFD) special economic zone from Q1 2022, which will be the centre for RHQs of all major Saudi companies and banks.

12 January 2022, the Swiss Federal Council published a draft Bill aimed at introducing trusts into Swiss law. The proposed provisions, which will be included in a new chapter of the Code of Obligations, will enable trusts to be used both to structure private assets and for commercial transactions.

Foreign trusts have been recognised in Switzerland under the Hague Trust Convention since 2007 but, despite several previous attempts to introduce Swiss trust legislation, Switzerland has never previously provided for specific trust rules, and it has not been possible to establish a trust under Swiss law.

The impetus for the Bill came from the Swiss parliament, which approved a motion instructing the Federal Council to create the legal basis for the introduction of trusts. A regulatory impact assessment confirmed that trusts responded to a need among clients for structuring their succession and inheritance.

According to the Swiss Federal Council, trusts are playing an increasingly important role in wealth structuring and estate planning practice, and it wants to provide Swiss clients with an alternative to foreign countries to set up trusts. It also notes that establishing a Swiss trust will give rise to new business opportunities and that trusts will not compete with the legal form of the foundation.

According to the draft Bill, the Swiss trust will be a specific legal instrument and will not be considered as a contract or a legal entity and will have a maximum duration of a trust of 100 years. The creation of charitable trusts and other purpose trusts will be expressly excluded but the draft Bill does not provide for any limitation as to the purpose of the trust. In particular, the establishment of commercial trusts will be permitted.

The draft bill does not provide for any modification or derogation from the rules of the Civil Code in matters of ownership rights. The trustee will hold full ownership rights to the assets of the trust. Beneficiaries will only have personal rights, reinforced by a bankruptcy privilege in the event of forced execution against the trustee and a tracing right where trust property has been disposed of in breach of the trustee's obligations.

The Bill provides that the trust assets and liabilities constitute a separate fund from the trustee's own estate and the trust assets are not part of the trustee's matrimonial property or their estate on death.

Swiss trusts will have to meet international reporting and documentation requirements; trustees will be required to identify the beneficiaries for anti-money laundering and tax transparency purposes. The trust instrument can designate the beneficiaries either by name or by a particular relationship with the settlor or with another person, or by other criteria capable of establishing the status of beneficiary at the time of a distribution.

To ensure the effective implementation of transparency rules, the draft bill provides for a new criminal provision that punishes the breach of identification and documentation duties by the trustee.

Switzerland's existing tax principles will apply to revocable and irrevocable fixed interest trusts, but irrevocable discretionary trusts are in principle to be taxed in the same way as foundations.

The consultation process on the draft Bill will remain open until 30 April. Depending on the outcome, a final draft will then be prepared for debate in the Swiss Parliament.

12 January 2022, the Swiss Federal Council announced it had decided to implement the minimum tax rate for certain companies agreed by the OECD and G20 member states by means of a constitutional amendment.

A temporary ordinance is to be issued to ensure that the minimum tax rate comes into force on 1 January 2024. A law following standard legislative procedures will then be brought forward to replace it without time pressure.

The Council said a minimum tax rate of 15% for multinational companies with turnover of more than €750 million had been agreed by 137 countries and, if a country maintained lower tax rates, other countries would be able to impose an additional tax on those undertaxed companies.

The incorporation of a minimum tax rate into Swiss law, it said, will ensure that large companies do not get involved in foreign proceedings and that Switzerland will not forgo any tax receipts to which it is entitled. The Federal Council also adopted the following content-related parameters:

• Ensure the minimum tax rate for multinational companies with annual turnover of at least €750 million.
• The additional tax receipts go to the cantons.
• The additional tax receipts are subject to the general rules for national fiscal equalisation.

It said the Confederation, cantons, cities and communes would work closely together on the implementation of the proposal. The Federal Department of Finance had set up a political consultative body in which all three levels of government are represented.

On 10 January, the State Secretariat for International Financial Matters issued a report on various ongoing tax projects, including the status of tax treaty negotiations, tax information exchange, mutual agreement procedure (MAP) and recent tax legislation.

Switzerland, it said, is working to update and expand its tax treaty network, which already extends to more than 100 countries. Last year, Switzerland signed a new tax treaty with Ethiopia and new tax treaty protocols with Armenia, Japan, and North Macedonia. In addition, new tax treaties entered into force with Bahrain, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia, while new amending protocols entered into force with Cyprus, Liechtenstein and Malta.

In respect of exchange of information for tax purposes, Switzerland has been automatically exchanging information on financial accounts with partner states since 2017 (AEOI). In 2021, Switzerland sent information on around 3.3 million financial accounts to 96 countries and received information on around 2.1 million accounts. In December 2021, the Federal Council initiated a consultation on introducing AEOI with 12 further states and territories. AEOI is scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2023 and the first exchange of data should take place in 2024.

According to the OECD’s 2021 peer review report, information on advance tax rulings was spontaneously exchanged around 750 times. OECD recommendations fell year-on-year to only two. Country-by-country reports (CbC) from multinationals were also exchanged with 81 partner states. The OECD again assessed Switzerland’s implementation of CbC reporting as compliant.

In the use of MAP to resolve cross-border tax and transfer pricing disputes, the Swiss government completed 181 mutual agreement procedures in 2020, mostly with other European countries. The report noted that the OECD had praised the efficiency of Switzerland’s transfer pricing MAP programme and named Switzerland as the fastest country at resolving transfer pricing disputes in its ‘MAP awards’ last November.

In terms of legislation, the Swiss government had enacted a law on the implementation of international tax agreements to provide for the rules relating to MAP and withholding tax relief. It entered into force on 1 January 2022.

5 January 2022, Tunisia committed to implement the international Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters (AEOI) by 2024. It was the 121st Global Forum member to commit to start AEOI by a specific date, and the tenth African country to do so.

The Global Forum Secretariat will assist Tunisia in implementing the Standard and in addressing any challenges that may arise. Tunisia will also benefit from the expertise of the Swiss Federal Tax Administration as part of a pilot project aimed at assisting the country in its implementation of AEOI.

“The automatic exchange will enable Tunisia to obtain, without prior request, a large amount of information on financial assets held abroad by Tunisian residents,” said Tunisian Minister of Finance Sihem Boughdiri Nemsia. “It thus represents a powerful tool in detecting non-compliance with tax obligations relating to these assets.”

The Global Forum will monitor Tunisia’s progress in delivering its commitment to start exchanging automatically by September 2024 and updates will be provided to the Global Forum members and the G20.

31 January 2022, the Ministry of Finance of the United Arab Emirates announced that the UAE is to introduce a federal corporate tax on business profits that will be effective for financial years starting on or after 1June 2023. The standard statutory tax rate will be set at 9% of taxable profits, with a zero-rate applying to profits up to AED375,000 (approx. USD100,000) to support small businesses and start-ups.

The Ministry said the corporate tax regime had been designed to incorporate best practices globally and minimise the compliance burden. Corporate tax would be payable on the profits of UAE businesses as reported in their financial statements and prepared in accordance with international accounting standards, with minimal exceptions and adjustments.

The corporate tax is to apply to all businesses and commercial activities, except for the extraction of natural resources, which will remain subject to Emirate level corporate taxation. No corporate tax will apply on personal income from employment, real estate and other investments, or on any other income earned by individuals that does not arise from a business or other form of commercial activity licensed or otherwise permitted to be undertaken in the UAE.

"As a leading jurisdiction for innovation and investment, the UAE plays a pivotal role in helping businesses grow, locally and globally. The certainty of a competitive and ‘best in class’ corporate tax regime, together with the UAE’s extensive double tax treaty network, will cement the UAE’s position as a world-leading hub for business and investment,” said Undersecretary at the Ministry of Finance Younis Haji Al Khoori.

“The UAE reaffirms its commitment to meeting international standards for tax transparency and preventing harmful tax practices. The regime will pave the way for the UAE to address the challenges arising from the digitalisation of the global economy and the other remaining Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) concerns and execute its support for the introduction of a global minimum tax rate by applying a different corporate tax rate to large multinationals that meet specific criteria set with reference to the above initiative."

This will allow the UAE to comply with the two-pillar solution to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation and globalisation of the economy agreed in October 2021 by 137 countries and jurisdictions under the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. This will introduce a global minimum corporate tax rate set at 15% for multinational enterprises with revenue above €750 million

Recognising the contribution of free zones to the UAE’s economy and competitiveness, the Ministry specifically confirmed that the UAE would continue to honour the corporate tax incentives currently being offered to free zone businesses that comply with all regulatory requirements and that do not conduct business with mainland UAE.

To maintain its role as a global financial centre and international business hub, the UAE said it would not be imposing withholding taxes on domestic and cross border payments and would not be subjecting foreign investors who do not carry on business in the UAE to corporate tax.

As an international headquarter location, a UAE business will be exempt from paying tax on capital gains and dividends received from its qualifying shareholdings, and foreign taxes will be allowed to be credited against UAE corporate tax payable.

The UAE corporate tax regime will have generous loss utilisation rules and will allow UAE groups to be taxed as a single entity or to apply group relief in respect of losses and intragroup transactions and restructurings.

The UAE corporate tax regime will ensure the compliance burden is kept to a minimum for businesses that prepare and maintain adequate financial statements. Businesses will only need to file one corporate tax return each financial year and will not be required to make advance tax payments or prepare provisional tax returns. Transfer pricing and documentation requirements will apply to UAE businesses with reference to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines.

31 January 2022, a district judge at Westminster magistrates court granted a Forfeiture Order for £5.6 million in UK bank accounts belonging to family members of Javanshir Feyziyev, who is a serving member of the Azerbaijan parliament, Chair of the UK-Azerbaijan All Parliamentary Co-operation Committee and Co-chair of the EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Co-operation Committee.

Following a National Crime Agency (NCA) investigation, six Account Freezing Orders (AFOs) were obtained for accounts held in the name of his wife, Parvana Feyziyeva, one of his children, Orkhan Javanshir, and his nephew, Elman Javanshir. Investigators suspected that the funds in these accounts were derived from the ‘Azerbaijan laundromat’, a sophisticated international money laundering scheme, and as such were recoverable property.

Through the ‘laundromat’, money would be moved via a complex network of shell companies that operated bank accounts in Estonia and Latvia, a process known as layering. Some of these transfers were accompanied by documents, including invoices and contracts, purporting to support legitimate and very substantial business transactions.

Following a three-week contested forfeiture hearing, District Judge John Zani was satisfied there was overwhelming evidence that these documents were entirely fictitious and were produced to mask the underlying money laundering activities of those orchestrating the accounts.

In his ruling, the Judge stated that having exhaustively considered the evidence filed, he was entirely satisfied that there was a significant money laundering scheme in existence in Azerbaijan, Estonia and Latvia at the relevant time. The total amount ordered for forfeiture, out of the £15.3 million initially frozen in the bank accounts, was £5.63 million.

NCA Head of Civil Recovery Andy Lewis said: “This is a substantial forfeiture of money laundered through the Azerbaijan laundromat, and our success highlights the risk to anyone who uses these schemes. We were able to recover these millions without needing to prove the exact nature of the original criminal activity. We will continue to use civil powers to target money entering the UK via illegitimate means.”

Rather than proving criminality to beyond a reasonable doubt, enforcement agencies seeking AFOs in account forfeiture proceedings need only prove their case on the balance of probabilities. Since their introduction in 2017, 381 AFOs totalling over £56 million in assets have been issued by the courts following an application from HMRC, of which more than 150 have been issued since July 2020.

24 January 2022, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the establishment of a limited-duration pilot programme for sharing suspicious activity reports (SARs) under Section 6212 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020.

The pilot programme would permit a financial institution with a SAR reporting obligation to share SARs and information related to SARs with its foreign branches, subsidiaries and affiliates for the purpose of combating illicit finance risks, subject to approval and conditions set by FinCEN.

‘Financial Institutions’ include casinos, depository institutions, insurers, money services businesses, mortgage companies and brokers, precious metals / jewellery businesses, and securities and futures firms.

FinCEN’s previously issued guidance on sharing SARs within a corporate organisational structure stated that financial institutions were only permitted to share SARs with foreign head offices, controlling companies (whether domestic or foreign) and domestic affiliates.

The proposed rule aims to ensure that the sharing of information is limited by the requirements of federal and state law enforcement, takes into account potential concerns of the intelligence community, and is subject to appropriate standards and requirements regarding data security and the confidentiality of personally identifiable information.

“This NPRM builds on the experience that FinCEN has gained in administering existing pilot programmes and once finalised, will assist financial institutions in further combating illicit finance risks.  We expect that the pilot program will provide valuable feedback to FinCEN as longer-term approaches towards SAR sharing with foreign affiliates are considered,” said FinCEN Acting Director Himamauli Das

If finalised, the proposed rule would establish a limited-duration pilot programme to allow SAR sharing with foreign affiliates, which would also provide FinCEN with valuable feedback about the costs and benefits of such SAR sharing for participating financial institutions, the technical challenges, and the value for FinCEN and law enforcement. Comments on the NPRM should be submitted by 28 March.