Offshore Financial Centre - Regulation

Regulation

Offshore centres benefit from a low burden of regulation. An extremely high proportion of hedge funds (which characteristically employ high risk investment strategies) who register offshore are presumed to be driven by lighter regulatory requirements rather than perceived tax benefits. Many capital markets bond issues are also structured through a special purpose vehicle incorporated in an offshore financial centre specifically to minimise the amount of regulatory red-tape associated with the issue.

Offshore centres have historically been seen as venues for laundering the proceeds of illicit activity. However, following a move towards transparency during the 2000s and the introduction of strict AML regulations, some now argue that offshore are in many cases better regulated than many onshore financial centres. For example, in most offshore jurisdictions, a person needs a licence to act as a trustee, whereas (for example) in the United Kingdom and the United States, there are no restrictions or regulations as to who may serve in a fiduciary capacity. The leading offshore financial centres are more compliant with the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering's '40+9' recommendations than many OECD countries.

Some commentators have expressed concern that the differing levels of sophistication between offshore financial centres will lead to regulatory arbitrage, and fuel a race to the bottom, although evidence from the market seems to indicate the investors prefer to utilise better regulated offshore jurisdictions rather than more poorly regulated ones. A study by Australian academic found that shell companies are more easily set up in many OECD member countries than in offshore jurisdictions. A report by Global Witness, Undue Diligence, found that kleptocrats used French banks rather than offshore accounts as destinations for plundered funds.