The Jersey establishment is not serious about tackling fraud and crime. Under increasing pressure, it is making  half-hearted gestures. A letter from the Attorney General (reproduced) below fails to explain why Jersey has always been lagging in introducing decent legislation. Anyone with any experience of detecting and fighting fraud knows that at the outset, the investigators have little idea of how any fraud has been perpetrated. The investigators always proceed in a tentative and contingent manner. But the Jersey authorities have plans to obstruct such investigations. As the Attorney General puts it, "In particular, I will not permit fishing expeditions or make orders in terms which are wider than 1 consider necessary for the purposes of the investigation". Clearly, Jersey does not have any serious intention of  fighting fraud.
 
 

                                                                              25th September 1998
Mrs. N. Adamson,
President,
The Association of Solicitors to the Supreme
Court of  England and Wales,
Nigel Harris & Partners
Oak Walk
St. Peter
Jersey.
 
 

Dear Mrs.  Adamson,
 

                                        Investigation of Fraud (Jersey) Law, 1991
 

As you know it has been the policy, in considering whether to exercise the Attorney General's powers under the above Law in cases of serious or complex fraud to have regard, inter alia, to two general guidelines.

 (i) The figure of £2 million has been taken as a guide to what constitutes serious or complex fraud although this has never been a fixed test and there are sometimes other factors which may cause a fraud invoicing a lesser sum still to be considered as serious or complex,

(ii) The Powers have lot been exercised in cases of purely fiscal fraud.

In relation to the figure of £2 million, this was based upon the original figure used by the Serious Fraud Office in the United Kingdom.  That figure is no longer used by the SFO.
Furthermore, it is not used by my counterparts in Guernsey and the Isle of Man where  legislation is, for these purposes, identical.

The figure is not mentioned in the statute and 1 believe that it has come to represent an unnecessary barrier to giving assistance in cases which most people would regard as serious or complex. 1 do not believe that it is in the Island's best interests for it to be more difficult to investigate cases of serious or complex fraud in Jersey than in other jurisdictions with identical legislation.  On the contrary 1, believe it is in the Island's best interest to be at the forefront. Of the fight {against international fraud.

For these reasons I propose with immediate effect to remove the £2 million guideline. I shall in future consider the circumstances of each individual case in assessing whether it can properly be classified as serious or complex fraud.

In relation to the policy on fiscal frauds. I have given consideration to the fact that there is no exemption for fiscal offences in the draft Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law.  It seems to me wholly illogical that fiscal fraud should be included as criminal conduct which requires disclosure under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, but that, even if such a fraud could be classified as serious or complex, it would not be the subject of investigation under the Investigation of Fraud (Jersey) Law.  I have also taken into account the changed international climate in relation to matters of tax evasion and the practice in Guernsey and the Isle of Man.  For these reasons I propose, with immediate effect, to remove the prohibition on the giving of assistance in cases of fiscal fraud.

However I wish to emphasize that, as required by the statute, I will need to satisfy myself  that there is indeed a suspected offence involving serious or complex fraud and that there is good
reason to exercise my powers under the statute. In particular, I will not permit fishing expeditions or make orders in terms which are wider than 1 consider necessary for the purposes of the investigation.

I am writing to you so that your members may be are aware of these changes in practice,

                                                   Yours sincerely,
 
 

                                                   Attorney General