Andrew Lyman: “Gibraltar Commission won’t apply artificially rules to meet FATF demands on tougher gambling sanctions”
Andrew Lyman , Gibraltar’s Chief Commissioner for Gambling, has stated that his department is committed to helping the government remove the British Overseas Territory from the Financial Action Task Force ‘s (FATF) ‘greylist’ – ‘in the quickest of time possible’.
The statement was made to delegates attending the KPMG Gibraltar e-Gambling Summit this morning, in which Lyman detailed his surprise at the FATF’s decision to brand Gibraltar as a high-risk AML jurisdiction.
Addressing ‘lurid and skewed media headlines’, Lyman stood up for Gibraltar asserting that “there are no fundamental, systemic, AML/TF weaknesses in this jurisdiction and Gibraltar now has a strong AML and TF system which makes the greylisting decision more difficult to cope with”.
From his own interpretation of FATF’s rulings, Lyman stated there are only two action points to address on ‘successful confiscation cases’ (a subject of law and police) and supervisors imposing proportionate and effective sanctions where appropriate.
Highlighting the latter action point, that has led to Gibraltar being subject to enhanced FAFT monitoring, he outlined a spotlight has been placed on the ‘efficacy of gambling supervision in the jurisdiction’ and the imposition of appropriate sanctions.
Lyman stood by the Gambling Commission’s track-record on supervising ‘high-risk’ gambling businesses, stating his opinion that had the FATF accepted that the range of sanctions imposed by the Gambling Division in the post-observation period were effective and proportionate. “It may be that Gibraltar would not have been placed on the greylist at all. That is my perception,” he noted.
Accepting the FATF’s decision, Lyman underscored that the Gambling Commission and Gibraltar authorities were committed to maintaining the Moneyval and FATF’s processes that have been fully embraced by the jurisdiction.
He said: “This is the shortest action plan for any grey-listed jurisdiction and a different outcome may have been to return Gibraltar to Moneyval enhanced monitoring; as happened with the Isle of Man. Unfortunately, this alternative was not adopted.”