11.4 Issues and recommendations
11.4.1 Introduction
In accordance with our interpretation of our TOR,
we are required to assess whether:
- in the event that a limited partnership is used
or suspected of being used for criminal purposes, the law enforcement
authorities in Bermuda are able to obtain basic information concerning
the partnership, such as the identity of the partners;
- the identity of general and limited partners
of limited partnerships in Bermuda has been ascertained through
the usual "know your customer" procedures; and
- adequate procedures are in place to protect the
interests of partnerships utilising professional service providers
in Bermuda.
For the reasons set out in the following paragraphs
we are of the view that, with some minor exceptions, the legislation
and systems in place in Bermuda concerning limited partnerships
exceed good practice standards.
We do consider that some further enforcements may
be desirable and these are set out below.
11.4.1.1 Availability of information to
law enforcement agencies
As set out above, a significant amount of information
is required to be filed with the Registrar. This information is
available to the public and therefore readily accessible to the
law enforcement authorities in Bermuda.
Furthermore, a limited partnership is required to
keep at its registered office in Bermuda such records of account
as would enable the financial position of the partnership at the
end of each three month period to be ascertained. Although these
records are not available to the public, subject to Court Order,
they could be accessed by the law enforcement agencies if required.
We are of the opinion that the legislative requirements
prescribing the information and records to be kept in Bermuda
are comprehensive and exceed good practice standards. Of course
the quality of the information will be dependent upon:
- the due diligence checks undertaken with regard
to partners; and
- the degree of compliance with regard to the other
record keeping requirements.
These matters are addressed in the following paragraphs.
11.4.1.2 Application of know your customer
and record keeping requirements
The BMA carries out the same due diligence checks
on general partners as it carries out on the shareholders of companies.
We have commented on enhancements that could be made to the vetting
procedure in the Companies section of this report. We consider,
however, that the carrying out of such checks exceeds good practice
standards.
We do not, however, consider that the vetting checks
undertaken by the BMA should be considered as a substitute for
the due diligence checks that FATF and CFATF Recommendations require
to be undertaken by professional service providers.
Persons who form limited partnerships or provide
registered office or resident representative services for limited
partnerships are not currently subject to any "know your
customer" or record keeping requirements. We consider that
in order to comply with FATF and CFATF Recommendations they should
be. In the circumstances, we recommend that all persons who, for
profit, form limited partnerships or provide registered office
or resident representative services for limited partnerships should
be subject to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Regulations
1998 in respect of that activity.
11.4.1.3 Regulation of professional service
providers
We have indicated that those who form limited partnerships
and those who provide registered office and resident representative
services for limited partnerships should be considered as financial
service providers. We consider that, generally such service providers
should be regulated. The objectives of regulation are as follows:
- the maintenance of standards generally that will
protect partnerships using the service providers; and
- the maintenance of high record keeping standards
so that records required to be kept at the registered office are
maintained in good form so that they are of value to the law enforcement
agencies, if required.
We consider that the due diligence undertaken by
the BMA on general partners and the fact that the majority of
service providers are either lawyers or other regulated institutions
may achieve the results sought by regulation and that to require
regulation of the service providers by the BMA may not add any
value, despite the additional regulatory overheads.
We consider, however, that to avoid the necessity
for the introduction of a scheme for the regulation of partnership
service providers:
- Bermuda must ensure that all partnership service
providers are subject to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering)
Regulations 1998 as recommended above;
- that only lawyers or other regulated entities
should be permitted to provide partnership services; and
- that all limited partnerships should be required
to utilise a lawyer or other regulated entity to provide its registered
office and its resident representative.
11.4.1.4 Exempted and overseas partnerships
All exempted and overseas partnerships (even where
they are ordinary partnerships) are subject to similar registration
and other procedures as limited partnerships. We consider that
this accords with good practice as these partnerships have an
offshore connection. Our recommendations concerning limited partnerships
also apply to exempted and overseas partnerships that are ordinary
partnerships.
11.4.1.5 Other areas for improvement
There is no provision for the appointment of an inspector
of a limited partnership. We consider that it should, in suitable
circumstances (for example on the public interest ground), be
possible for the Court to appoint an Inspector of a limited partnership
and for the Inspector to have powers of dissolution.
As indicated earlier, partnerships having non-Bermudian
partners may register but are not required to register as exempted
partnerships. As a result, there is no vetting by the BMA of the
partners of such partnerships unless they are limited partnerships.
The Ministry of Finance considers that a non-Bermudian cannot
be a partner in an ordinary partnership without becoming subject
to the Immigration Act and that control is therefore retained.
However, it must be accepted that in such cases non-Bermudian
partners will still fall outside the BMA vetting procedures. We
consider that it would be better for all non-Bermudian partners
to be vetted by the BMA.