Sanctions 2025 Comparisons

There is no sanctions sector per se in Jamaica. This is because it does not have an environment that is welcoming or otherwise facilitative of activities that attract sanctions. There are now, however, more notifications from the regulator in relation to persons who are on the UN Sanctions List.

The implementation of the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) Regime was at the forefront for improving Jamaica’s sanction regime in 2023. However, in October 2024, the government of Jamaica indicated that this plan was no longer a priority as the existing laws and regimes were strong enough to address suspicious sources of an individual’s wealth. Reference was made to the UK Parliamentary assessment which revealed that only nine UWOs had been issued since its introduction four years previously, despite the rise in money laundering activities. Additionally, for UWOs to be implemented, constitutional amendments would have to be made, which would take time.

On the other hand, the head of investigations at the Financial Investigations Division (FID) stated that the imposition of UWOs would address the issue currently being faced – that criminals are exploiting gaps in the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) as the legislation enacted in 2007 is not effective in combatting today’s exploitations. He believes that UWOs would assist in dealing with the 150 active money laundering cases, some of which concern assets exceeding JMD70 million.

For now, the plan appears to be to continue strengthening the recommendations given by FATF.

The regulated sector in general is impacted by the sanctions regime. However, the areas of the industrial sector  which are particularly affected by the AML and CTF legislation include:

• banking and finance;
• money services businesses;
• casinos and gaming;
• insurance;
• securities;
• real estate;
• accountants; and
• designated non-financial businesses and professionals.

Additionally, the effects of the sanctions regulations extend to the tourism and trade sector, for example when Jamaica was grey listed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), notifications were sent to international financial and other institutions to take caution when transacting or doing business with Jamaica, which in turn made transactions more expensive, and less favourable.

The primary regulators for sanctions activities in Jamaica are:

• Supervisory Authority - Bank of Jamaica;
• Designated Authority - The Financial Investigations Division;  and
• Competent Authority – The General Legal Council;
1. Public Accountancy Board for accountants;
2. General Legal Council (GLC) for attorneys;
3. Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Commission for the gaming sector;
4. Casino Gaming Commission for casinos; and
5. Real Estate Board for real estate dealers.

The designated authority under both pieces of legislation (POCA and TPA) refers to the Chief Technical Director of the FID of the Finance Ministry to whom reports are made.

TPA

The following entities have a duty to report to the FID in different circumstances:

• foreign companies concerned in the business of banking, securities, insurance, investment advice or trusts;
• financial institutions; and
• any entity designated by the Minister as applicable.

The circumstances under which these entities must submit a report include the following.

• Listed Entity Report (Section 15) – entities are obligated to declare whether they are in possession or control of property which is owned or controlled by a listed entity (ie, a person/entity designated as being a terrorist entity by the UNSC). The reports must be done in accordance with the legislation and done once in every four-calendar month, or when requested by the FID. 
• Suspicious Transaction Reports (Section 16) – entities must report:
1. any transaction which is complex, unusually large, or has an unusual pattern that has no apparent economic/visibly lawful purpose; and/or
2. any transaction (completed or not) which is suspected or has reasonable cause to suspect the involvement of property connected with a terrorism offence, or a listed entity/terrorist group.
• Information About Terrorism Offence Report (Section 13) – a duty is imposed on any person, save and except attorneys-at-law in regard to legal professional privilege, to report to a constable any information obtained via their trade, profession or employment which causes them to reasonably believe another has committed a terrorism offence.

POCA

Under POCA and its corresponding Regulations and Orders, the circumstances necessitating a report, as well as who receives the report, varies. For instance, in accordance with Section 91A(e)(ii) the competent authority appointed by the Minister can require businesses to report in specified matters.

Other circumstances under which these entities must submit a report include the following.

Cash threshold reports

This applies to financial institutions where any person of the institution conducts a cash transaction(s) amounting/ exceeding a particular threshold (remittance – USD5,000; Cambio – USD8,000; any other financial institutions – USD15,000).

The report is made either on the institution’s own initiative or as a result of the FID’s request (POCA Regulations, Section 3).

It also applies to cross-border transactions, as any person who transports USD10,000 cash or more, into or out of the country may be required to report the relevant details to FID (Section 101).

Suspicious transaction reports (POCA, Sections 94–96)

An obligation is imposed on all businesses in the regulated sector, nominated officers and authorised officers to disclose any person’s engagement in a transaction that is related to money laundering, or any reasonable grounds to believe a transaction is related to money laundering.

Financial activities reports (Legal Profession Act, Section 5(3C))

Attorneys-at-Law, are required to disclose a declaration annually to the Governing Council indicating whether the attorney engaged in activities on behalf of any client which concern financial activities such as purchasing/selling property/a business, or managing banking accounts.

GLC v JAMBAR [2023] UKPC 6

The Jamaica Bar association challenged the aspects of POCA, specifically Sections 91A and 94 regarding disclosure, claiming they violated the constitutional rights of privacy, liberty and freedom from search of property. This case is extremely significant as it sets a binding precedent to follow, as the Privy Council overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and confirmed the Act is constitutional. The case also outlined key points which aid in the understanding of the operation of the sanction regime, namely:

• that there is no obligation on an attorney-at-law to disclose privileged documents/information to its governing body;
• if an occasional mistaken disclosure of privileged material takes place, then the GLC, which is fully legally qualified to spot the mistake, will be obliged to return any relevant privileged material on appreciating that an obvious mistake has been made;
• the Act does not confer coercive powers of search and seizure; as such there is no infringement of the right to protection from search of property; and
• protection of private life, privacy of other property and of communication would only be infringed if it could not be shown it was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The regime is not unconstitutional as any breach is justified due to the importance of combating money laundering (detecting, preventing and prosecuting it), as well as the need for Jamaica to comply with its international obligations.

Detective Sergeant Dwayne Falconer v Michelle Hall [2023] JMCA Civ 38

This case has been instructive in the development of the sanction regime as the Court of Appeal has explained the application of the reporting sanctions under POCA.

The case concerned a report made by Sergeant Falconer in accordance with POCA for the forfeiture of USD45,366 from Ms Hall, as he suspected the cash was obtained from unlawful conduct or was intended to be used in unlawful conduct. This was based on the circumstances of discovering USD36,000 hidden in shampoo bottles with the remainder found in the respondent’s handbag. The respondent admitted that the cash in her handbag came from a partner draw, but denied knowing about the hidden cash, claiming the luggage belonged to her sister’s boyfriend.

The Court of Appeal set aside the Parish Court’s decision that the cash found in the respondent’s handbag was not recoverable property.  This was due to the Parish Court Judge failing to give proper weight to the entirety of the circumstances.

Despite the respondent accounting for the money found in her handbag, which is below the statutory threshold, the circumstances in which the money was found must be analysed in their entirety. Firstly, the respondent gave limited or useless information to the source of the money found as she provided only the banker’s first name who provided her with the cash but not the bank itself. This could not be used to refer to an identifiable source. Secondly, the respondent made herself scarce during investigations and left three days after her arrival, which lead to the use of alternative methods of service for this trial. Her lack of interest in the seized money was evident as she did not challenge the forfeiture of the money and provided vague reasoning for leaving: “to deal with documentation”. Lastly, new evidence revealed inconsistencies as she indicated to a source that her disinterest in the money (found in her handbag) stemmed from it not belonging to her.

In conclusion, the case acts as a precedent for the enforcement of POCA in society and which assets should be deemed as recoverable.

Alliance Investment Management Limited [2024]

Although this case did not pass the lower court, it is instrumental in the development of the sanctions regime in Jamaica. In this matter, Senior Parish Court judge Chester Crooks upheld a no-case submission, dismissing 17 charges that were brought against the defendants for failing to file a threshold transaction report required under POCA Regulations.

Despite the FID claiming that the company was non-compliant, evidence indicated that the required reports were filed. This administrative error by the FID resulted in serious financial repercussions such as heavy fines on the company and its principals, which resulted in the company being sold. The case highlighted that in order for Jamaica to have an efficient sanctions regime, not only should proper laws and regulations be implemented on businesses and other individuals, but they must be properly monitored and governed. The system will not work if compliance is not supervised correctly.

Although Jamaica has been removed from the FATF Grey List, continuous work needs to be done to ensure it does not return to that position, and that it is removed from the European Commission’s list of high-risk countries. At the FATF plenary meeting in June 2023, Jamaica was found to be largely compliant with 37 of the 40 recommendations. The country’s next step would then be to improve on the outstanding recommendations which relate to:

• implementing targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation;
• implementing new technology, for example cryptocurrency; and
• improving/strengthening the non-profit sector.

The government of Jamaica’s Socio-Economic Framework (2021–24) will continue to be worked on in keeping with Jamaica’s Vision 2030 plan. The framework includes plans of:

• developing Supervisory Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Rules under the Banking Services Act (BSA) and the Bank of Jamaica Act (BOJA);
• developing the methodology for and implementing risk-based supervision (prudential and AML/CFT) to all licensees on a phased basis. While this has begun in some sectors it has not been achieved in its entirety; and
• amending the Bank of Jamaica Act to enhance its governance and autonomy.

The process for being removed as a listed entity can be taken via the domestic route or international route, depending on where an entity is listed.

Listed Under TPA

Under Section 14(6)–(9) of the TPA, an order made to treat a designated entity as a “listed entity” can be challenged within 60 days after the order is published. The application seeking review is made by the listed entity to a Supreme Court judge, with notice being given to the DPP.

The delisting process includes the judge:

• hearing evidence or information presented by the DPP;
• providing the applicant with a summarised statement of the information given;
• providing the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to be heard; and
• determining whether the order should be revoked based on the information available.

Every six months the DPP also reviews all orders made in respect of a listed entity and if the circumstances which prompted the listing no longer exist, they shall make an application for revocation to a Supreme Court judge. 

Listed by the UNSC

According to the UNSC Resolutions Implementation Act Amendment 2019, Section 3 (5B), a Jamaican national/resident who has been listed by the UNSC can apply for delisting through the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade who submits the application to the UN.

A successful challenge under Section 14 TPA, mentioned in 4.1 Process, will result in the Supreme Court judge revoking the order previously made listing the designated entity. In other words, the remedy would amount to the designated entity being removed from the list. 

There is no set time for a revocation to be granted as it mirrors the time it ordinarily takes to obtain a formal order in the Supreme Court. Due to the tardiness of the court system and different agencies involved it may take three to four months or more to receive an order.

There do not appear to be any banned services to/from other countries except those that may be connected to prohibited goods listed in 5.2 Goods.

There are certain bans on the export and import of goods to or from other countries in Jamaica.

Importation

Section 40 of the Customs Act indicates that the following goods are prohibited from being imported:

• agricultural implements banned under the Plants (Protection from Disease) Act;
• goods that if sold would be liable to forfeiture under the Merchandise Marks Act, and all goods including Commonwealth trade marks unless accompanied by a definite indication of the country of origin;
• goods prohibited for import into the UK under the Anthrax Prevention Act (UK);
• animals and carcasses of animals as prohibited under the Animals (Diseases and Importation Act);
• arms and ammunition;
• brandy of lower strength than 30 degrees per centum under proof;
• clocks and watches or other articles of metal which represent an imitation of any legal Commonwealth assay, mark or stamp;
• coin-base or counterfeit imitation coin of any country;
• drugs – opium and other dangerous drugs prohibited under the Dangerous Drugs Act;
• essence of brandy/whiskey/flavouring essence;
• indecent or obscene prints;
• oil – edible;
• oil of gin/cognac;
• rum colouring solutions/liquid extracts;
• spirits and wine;
• fictitious stamps; and
• sugar. 

Notably, there are exceptions to some of the items noted. However, it is recognised that there is a strict prohibition on the importation of:

• pork and pork products (excluding in hermetically sealed cans/ tins) from the USA;
• beef, beef products and by-products from Canada;
• certain brands of crayons from China and Thailand; and
• from any country:
1. honey;
2. coin-base or counterfeit imitation coin of any country;
3. indecent/obscene prints;
4. rum colouring solutions;
5. opium and dangerous drugs; and
6. race dogs.

Exportation

Section 41 of the Customs Act indicates that goods prohibited from being exported include, with exceptions:

• arms, ammunition and military and naval stores; and
• spirits and wine.

There is also an issue with the export of bauxite due to sanctions imposed on UC Rusal, a Russian company. UC Rusal operates Windalco which is located in Ewarton, Jamaica.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

Under both pieces of legislation (POCA and TPA), the designated authority is the Chief Technical Director of the FID of the Ministry responsible for finance, or such other person as may be designated by the Minister by order.

There are no provisions which impose indirect designation of entities/persons due to them being owned/controlled by a directly designated person. However, there are risks involved with persons affiliated with directly designated persons. For example, TPA Section 15 indicates that entities which are in possession/control of property that is owned/controlled by or behalf of a listed entity must make the relevant required report to the FID every fourth calendar month. Failure to carry out this obligation will result in criminal liability.

Moreover, while designation is not automatic, under Section 14, an application can be made by the DPP for an entity to be treated as a listed entity where the DPP has reasonable grounds to believe that the entity has knowingly acted on behalf of/in association with/at the direction of an entity listed by the UNSC.