THE BOTTOM LINE
- Mandatory Registration is Enforced: Companies in Curaçao operating in designated sectors, such as real estate, are legally required to register with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) under anti-money laundering (AML) laws. Non-compliance is a criminal offense.
- Ignoring Warnings Proves Intent: Failing to respond to official communications from regulators can be used by courts to establish intentional non-compliance. A passive failure to act becomes an active, prosecutable offense.
- Conviction Carries Reputational Risk: While the financial penalty in this case was modest, a criminal conviction for AML-related offenses poses a significant reputational and operational risk to any business and its leadership.
THE DETAILS
A real estate company in Curaçao has been convicted and fined for intentionally violating the country’s anti-money laundering (AML) regulations. The Court of First Instance found that the company, despite its business activities clearly falling under the scope of the National Ordinance on Reporting Unusual Transactions (LvMOT), had failed to complete its mandatory registration with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and its supervisory body. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that regulatory compliance is not optional and that authorities are actively pursuing enforcement.
The court’s reasoning focused heavily on the element of intent. Prosecutors demonstrated that the FIU’s supervisory department had made multiple attempts to inform the company of its legal obligations, sending several letters and eventually making direct contact with one of the company’s directors. Following a phone call, the relevant information was emailed again with an agreement that the company would respond. When no action was taken, the court concluded that the failure to register was not a mere oversight but a deliberate act of non-compliance. This highlights a critical point for all businesses: ignoring official correspondence from a regulator is one of the quickest ways to escalate a compliance issue into a criminal matter.
This case underscores the principle of “colorless intent” in economic criminal law, a concept particularly relevant to legal counsel. The prosecution did not need to prove that the directors knew their inaction was a crime. It was sufficient to prove that the company was made aware of its clear legal duty to register and subsequently failed to do so. For CEOs and board members, the takeaway is clear: AML compliance is a core business function that requires proactive management. The relatively small fine of NAf 1,500 should not obscure the more significant consequence—a criminal record for the company, which can cause lasting damage to its reputation, banking relationships, and ability to conduct business.
SOURCE
Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao
