We wish to set the record straight to correct the omission of pertinent facts and misstatements made by the Bank of Jamaica (BOJ) in recent publications. 

Firstly, it is key to note that Alliance Investment Management Limited (AIML); Alliance Financial Services Limited (AFSL); and Alliance Finance Limited (AFL) are three (3) separate legal entities with each their own separate business operations. Also AIML and AFSL are entities regulated by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the BOJ respectively.

Alliance Financial Services Limited (AFSL), as an entity regulated by the BOJ was subject to annual review by BOJ examiners before the renewal of its licenses to operate cambio and remittance services. 

Peter Chin and Robert Chin (the Chins), as individuals, along with Alliance Finance Limited (AFL), were charged with the offences of carrying on the business of lending in foreign currency in breach of the Bank of Jamaica Act and accepting deposits without the requisite license in breach of the Banking Services Act.  The charges against the Chins were unprecedented and unnecessary.  

Alliance Investment Management Limited (AIML) was also charged with breaches of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering Prevention) Regulations 2007 alleging that it had failed to make threshold transaction reports, which AIML contested, and on April 4, 2024, after a successful no case submission, the charges were dismissed. This means there was no basis for the charges to be laid against AIML in the first place, as there was no case to answer. AIML was not guilty.  

The BOJ’s suspension of AFSL’s Cambio and Remittance Licenses as well as its authorization to operate its electronic payments service within the Fintech Regulatory Sandbox occurred in December 2021- immediately following the laying of the criminal charges against the Chins, AFL and AIML. 

Even though AFSL had not been charged with any offence, the BOJ claimed that the charges laid by the Financial Investigations Division (FID) on the Chins, as individuals,  rendered AFSL’s principals, Peter Chin and Robert Chin not fit and proper persons to participate in a Bank of Jamaica regulated business, even though they had not been tried or convicted of any offence.

The charges against AFL, for lending in foreign currency, related to transactions conducted between 2013 and 2019. It was AFL who self-reported to the BOJ certain historic loan transactions which had been made in foreign currency. The transactions were done consistent with an industry practice and was not prohibited by the Money Lending Act under which AFL operated at the material time. AFL conducted a review of its procedures to ensure conformity with the new Microcredit Act in June 2021, and the restriction on lending in foreign currency imposed by section 22A of the Bank of Jamaica Act came to light.  AFL promptly sought guidance from the BOJ in the interest of conformity with the Bank of Jamaica Act. The BOJ provided directions which were implemented, and the BOJ acknowledged AFL’s compliance in September 2021, two months before the charges were laid by the FID. 

It was therefore shocking that the charges were laid at all. AFL pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined. The charges against Peter Chin and Robert Chin, the individuals, were withdrawn by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). 

AFSL filed an application in the Supreme Court for leave to institute judicial review proceedings against the BOJ on the grounds that the decision to suspend its Cambio Licence and revoke its authorisation to operate the electronic payments service was ultra vires, arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and that the BOJ had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice and AFSL had a legitimate expectation that it would be afforded an opportunity to be heard before such drastic action was taken peremptorily. 

There was no validation of BOJ’s actions by the Court. In fact, the Court ruled that AFSL’s judicial review claim had realistic prospects of success and granted AFSL permission to bring a judicial review claim. That judicial review claim would have quite possibly taken months or years to be decided. AFSL would not have been able to operate for that entire period unless an interim injunction was granted by the court. However, the Court refused to grant an interim injunction against the BOJ pending the hearing of the judicial review claim. The Court recognised that damage would be done to AFSL’s business, by not being able to operate until the outcome of the judicial review, but acceded to BOJ’s argument that the potential damage to the Jamaican economy and the financial sector outweighed any potential damage to AFSL’s business.

The effect of the BOJ’s suspension of AFSL’s licences and authorization to operate within the Fintech Regulatory Sandbox, without any judicial review hearing happening soon, was devastating. A company against which there were NO CHARGES was unable to operate. The Chins, as the principals of AFSL, attempted to negotiate with the BOJ terms that would allow the company to continue to operate. The Chins were willing to remove themselves from the management and directorship of AFSL, completely.  

The BOJ refused any compromise of the Chins stepping down from management and directorship of AFSL to save the business. AFSL had to immediately cease its operations, and its business and their partners (Cambios, Remittance Agencies and other partners) came to a grinding halt. The Chins had no alternative but to sell their company to ensure the continuity of the business they had built and secure employment for their staff/team members and by extension, their partners. Also, the BOJ’s actions caused severe and debilitating damage to the AFSL brand as well as the reputations of Mr Peter Chin and Mr Robert Chin. 

Interesting to note is that the regulating bodies, the FSC and the BOJ, took different approaches towards AIML and AFSL respectively following the charges being laid against The Chins. The FSC opted to enforce enhanced supervision of AIML (the company with looming POCA charges). Whereas the BOJ opted to immediately suspend the licences of AFSL (the company with absolutely no charges against them). WHY?

On April 4, 2024, Chief Parish Court Judge, The Honourable Justice Mr. Chester Crooks, dismissed the charges against Alliance Investment Management Limited (AIML), ruling that the prosecution had not made out a case against AIML.