Proceeds Of Crime And Jersey Trust Assets
Representation of Gary Stephen Kaplan [2009] JRC 082 (29 April
2009)
The Royal Court has recently delivered the latest instalment in
the matter of the Bird Charitable Trust and the Bird Purpose Trust
(see Ogier briefing dated February 2008). The Bailiff's
judgment of 29 April 2009 in the above case, concerned an
application to discharge a saisie judiciaire granted in May 2007 by
the Royal Court under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (the
"Law"), on the request of the United States, in respect
of the realisable property of Mr Gary Kaplan situated within
Jersey, including the assets of the Bird Trusts.
Facts
The salient facts are as follows. Mr Kaplan has been indicted in
United States in relation to alleged offences arising out the
online gaming business of BetonSports Plc. The proceeds of the
floatation of BetonSports Plc were settled by Mr Kaplan on the Bird
Trusts. Mr Kaplan applied to the Royal Court for a discharge of the
saisie, on various grounds, including that: a confiscation order in
the United States was not likely to be made; the dual criminality
test under the Law was not met; and, in any event, the assets of
the Bird Trusts were not situate in Jersey.
Decision
The Court held that, as a matter of discretion, the saisie
should be discharged, even though it rejected all of the grounds on
which Mr Kaplan relied in his application. As a preliminary matter,
the Court confirmed that in discharge applications, there is no
strict burden of proof falling on the Attorney General (on whose
application the saisie was granted) or on the applicant for the
discharge - the Court will apply a test of fairness.
The key points from a Jersey trust law perspective were as
follows: first, the property settled into the Bird Trusts fell
within definition of realisable property of the settlor under the
Law, on the basis that it amounted to a "gift" (as
defined in the Law); and, second, property held by Jersey based
nominees (in this case, nominees of Basel Trust Corporation) was
"situate" in Jersey for the purposes of the Law, even
though the actual assets were located overseas (such as Swiss bank
accounts), on the basis that the nominees were controlled in
Jersey.
The factors which the Court took into account in exercising its
discretion to discharge the saisie included the following: first,
the Viscount (in whom assets subject to a saisie vest under the
Law) was in an impossible position as he was unable to manage the
assets that had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial