Clarity on the PEP definition in the context of Unexplained Wealth Orders
News    ·   22-10-2018
EMAIL THIS PAGE PRINT

AUTHOR: Diane Bugeja

The UK court’s considerations in National Crime Agency v Mrs A (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 2534 around the definition of PEPs in the context of UWOs provide much needed clarity on a grey area which has till now remained open to interpretation. The salient take-aways from the judgement handed by Supperstone J relate to the following:

  1. the test for determining whether an enterprise is a state-owned enterprise for the purposes of the PEP definition is one of ownership and control, not legal status or powers; and
  2. where a person is entrusted with prominent public functions it necessarily follows that they will be entrusted to perform such functions "by" a State or international body

It is apparent that UWOs are a powerful tool that other jurisdictions should consider as part of their legislative toolbox for fighting ML/FT. Meanwhile, we welcome the ‘ancillary’ benefits of UWOs in terms of uncovering certain aspects of the legislation which need clarification and interpretative standards.

 

Keep in touch with us
linkedInrss
Send us a message

Enter the code shown:

Where we are

Camilleri Preziosi

Level 3, Valletta Buildings

South Street

Valletta, VLT 1103

Malta

footerPhone (+356) 2123 8989

footerContactMap