The Association of Corporate Service Providers has grave concerns about the Government’s proposed approach to a Beneficial Ownership Bill and that consultation on the matter has been ’wholly inadequate’.

Mark Denton, chairman of the ACSP, which represents approximately 150 member firms with almost 2,000 employees, spoke out following a recent debate on the Bill in Tynwald and further discussions with the Treasury Minister.

In particular, the ACSP has challenged the Government’s intention to create a new company officer, the Nominated Officer, claiming it is ’unnecessarily complicated, burdensome and expensive.’

The proposed Bill creates separate responsibilities for the Nominated Officer and the Legal Owner with separate liabilities and penalties. While Treasury claims there must be a Nominated Officer to provide beneficial ownership information, the ACSP points out that the Exchange of Notes with the UK expressly forbids any company officer being contacted in connection with an enquiry.

Mr Denton said: ’The very creation of the register, from which they will access beneficial ownership information, obviates the need for a Nominated Officer.

’No other jurisdiction is going down this route and it is not required under our international commitments. Certainly, it is not required for companies administered by TCSPs and other licensed entities as the testimony of international inspectors confirms.’

Mr Denton said the ACSP fully understood the Isle of Man’s international commitments and the necessity to create a central register of beneficial ownership.

As well as being active in the National Risk Assessment, the ACSP has supported Government with the Moneyval visit and will participate in the forthcoming OECD peer review in April. It was, he said, therefore ’extremely disappointing’ that ACSP members’ views had not been fully reflected during the Tynwald debate.

He added: ’We had a lot of correspondence with Treasury following the debate, culminating in a meeting with the Treasury Minister. We produced our arguments and alternative approaches which would achieve Government’s aims without placing further burdens on industry. We answered Treasury’s concerns and they could not come up with any credible or logical reason as to why they are set on this course.

’We were very disappointed to receive a letter from the Treasury Minister afterwards saying that our points have been rejected and that Government is sticking to its plan of action.’

The ACSP says that consultation for such a major change has been poor with the consultation response only published the day prior to the Bill receiving its second reading in Tynwald.

’Government says it has no time to do a second consultation so it is sticking to its current plan,’ said Mr Denton.

’I am sure the Funds Association will be equally upset that CIS’s, which were exempt in the first consultation, are no longer exempt in the second draft and there is no opportunity to appeal.

’The upshot seems to be that we are going to be saddled with a less than satisfactory end product and unnecessarily so.’