GFSC v (1) Ian Charles Domaille (2) Ian Geoffrey Clarke (3) Margaret Helen Hannis [2024] GCA 003

Summary

This is a Guernsey Court of Appeal judgment (Civil Division, Case No. 569, 18 January 2024) in an appeal brought by the GFSC against a Royal Court decision that had quashed enforcement sanctions against three former directors/officers of Artemis Trustees Limited (ATL), a licensed Guernsey fiduciary services company. The underlying sanctions (financial penalties, Prohibition Orders, disapplication of the six-directorship exemption, and Public Statements) had been imposed by a GFSC Senior Decision Maker for findings of lack of probity and breaches of the Minimum Criteria for Licensing under the Fiduciaries Law, arising from AML/CFT and governance failings at ATL between 2014 and 2021.

• Outcome: The Court of Appeal allowed the GFSC's appeal, holding that the Royal Court's judgment could not stand, and remitted the matter to the GFSC for sanctions to be redetermined by a newly appointed Senior Decision Maker (not the original SDM).
• Grounds addressed: The Court considered whether the Royal Court exceeded its statutory review jurisdiction under s.106 of the Enforcement Powers Law, misapplied the AML/CFT risk-based regime, erred on the probity test (Ivey) and standard of proof, and erred in assessing financial penalties (including retrospective application of increased fining powers from 13 November 2017).
• Guidance for future decision-maker: The Court gave observations for the new SDM on weighing remedial measures taken by ATL since 2019, how mitigation interacts with the seriousness of a self-reported breach, and the need for an individualised, fair assessment of each person's culpability.
• Nature of document: This is case law arising from a specific enforcement dispute; it does not itself create new rules, fees, or filing requirements for the regulated sector generally, though it clarifies the scope of the GFSC's and Royal Court's powers under the Enforcement Powers Law and the Fiduciaries Law.

Because this is a judicial decision resolving a specific enforcement appeal rather than a rule, notice, or guidance document, it does not impose new continuing obligations on regulated entities generally. Its practical significance for practitioners is as precedent on the GFSC's enforcement powers, the Royal Court's appellate role under s.106 of the Enforcement Powers Law, and the application of probity and proportionality tests to sanctions against individuals in fiduciary businesses.

Applies to

fiduciary services companies, company directors, money laundering reporting officers, money laundering compliance officers, controllers/partners of licensed financial services entities