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:
- 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
- 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.
