In June 2010 the Royal Court confirmed the Commission’s approach in issuing public statements under Article 25, Financial Services (Jersey) Law, including where there is the risk of hardship and suffering.

Homer -v- JFSC 2010 was an appeal against the Commission’s decision to issue a public statement under Article 25.  
http://www.jerseyfsc.org/the_commission/general_information/public_statements/MrRussellSheltonHomer.asp

In 2009 the Commission directed Mr Homer not to be employed to carry on financial services business without the Commission’s prior consent.

The Commission also decided to issue a public statement concerning the restrictions on Mr Homer’s activities. Mr Homer appealed that decision, arguing it was wrong and unreasonable given the difficult three years Mr Homer had lived through and the catastrophic impact a public statement could have on him personally.

Counsel for the Commission explained that in 2008 the Commission had advised Jersey’s finance sector of its intent to increase its use of enforcement powers in relation to trust company business should serious and material regulatory breaches occur. Since then numerous individuals have been restricted from working in Jersey’s finance industry and public statements issued. In such cases public statements were not issued to punish individuals but to protect investors and inform.

Jersey’s Royal Court noted the Commission had carefully considered Mr Homer’s difficulties when determining the statement’s terms. Dismissing the appeal, the Court considered that exempting Mr Homer from the usual public statement would be inconsistent with established practice and might expose the Commission to justifiable criticism.

The Commission took into account all relevant considerations, and reached a decision that was entirely reasonable in all the circumstances.

Observations

At a time of ever-increasing scrutiny of offshore financial centres it is vital for those carrying on financial services business in Jersey to meet the necessary regulatory standards and for the Commission to act where businesses, or individuals, fail to do so.
In this important decision, the Royal Court emphasised that “the interference with individual freedom is justified by the importance from a public perspective of assuring the integrity and honesty of the financial services industry in Jersey.”