13 May 2016

Financial services: FMA v. Vivier

Businesses providing financial services without a local client base could still use New Zealand registration as a “flag of convenience” but only under strict circumstances, the Court of Appeal ruled.
The court upheld a Financial Markets Authority decision to remove Vivier & Co Ltd from the register of financial service providers.  Vivier created a false and misleading appearance of the extent to which it was regulated by New Zealand law, the court ruled.  This damaged the integrity and reputation of New Zealand’s financial markets.
The Financial Markets Authority investigated Vivier after receiving an anonymous tipoff that the company had been accused in the Irish media of tax fraud and money laundering.  A visit to Vivier’s Auckland office identified one bored employee performing only minor administrative duties.  Vivier had no New Zealand clients.  Most clients appeared to be resident in Europe, primarily Spain.  Vivier’s website highlighted its New Zealand registration as a financial service provider, displayed the Financial Markets Authority’s logo and implied, incorrectly, that the Authority supervised its activities.  The Financial Services Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act does not regulate market activity.  Other financial regulation applies only to financial providers with New Zealand clients.  The court was told Vivier had five directors (two resident in Ireland, one in Italy and two in New Zealand) with a single New Zealand-based shareholder. 
Amending 2014 legislation deals with “flag of convenience” registration by financial providers based in New Zealand but not providing financial services within New Zealand.  To avoid de-registration, these businesses would need to make a special case to the Authority, said the court.  Those with only off-shore clients need to prove they are complying with the rules applicable to these off-shore markets and they are not to advertise themselves as being supervised by any New Zealand regulatory authority.   
Financial Markets Authority v. Vivier – Court of Appeal (13.05.16)

16.082