Suspicious Activity - The Dilemma Continues

Issues arising from the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports ("SARs") under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 ("the 1999 Law") simply will not go away, and the Royal Court (in Gichuru v. Walbrook [2008] JRC 068) has again recently sought to provide yet further clarity in this area.

In Gichuru the nature of the problem arising once an SAR has been filed by a financial institution such as a bank, was again summarised. If the police consent to the bank complying with a customer's instructions to pay out money from the customer's account then the bank would of course be protected. But if the police do not consent the bank is faced with a dilemma. On the one hand its customer is demanding that payment is made in accordance with the mandate. On the other hand it has a suspicion that its customer has been engaged in criminal conduct, and if it makes the payment it will clearly facilitate the retention or control of the money by its customer. Accordingly, if it were