Knowledge

The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (the "Court of Appeal") in R v Osmond [2026] EWCA Crim 979 is the first appellate decision to consider the tipping off provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA"). The Court of Appeal expressly permitted the judgment to be cited. The defendant, a solicitor and senior partner of a law firm, was convicted of tipping off and forgery and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.

Although not binding in Guernsey, the judgment is likely to be treated as highly persuasive, given the similarities between the Bailiwick's anti-money laundering ("AML") framework and the corresponding UK regime, and the willingness of Guernsey courts to consider English appellate authority when interpreting comparable statutory provisions.

R v Osmond – the facts

The case arose from a Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") investigation into suspected money laundering and corruption connected with transactions involving Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited and a Mayfair property purchase. The SFO had warned Osmond that its enquiries were confidential and referred to the tipping off offence. The prosecution alleged that Osmond then contacted and met with his client, disclosed information about the investigation, and coordinated responses to the SFO in a way capable of prejudicing the investigation. He was also alleged to have created and supplied a false engagement letter to the SFO. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and upheld the convictions.

The tipping off regime in Guernsey

In Guernsey, tipping off prohibitions arise principally under section 41 of the Criminal Justice (Proceeds of Crime) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1999 and section 4 of the Disclosure (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2007. These provisions form part of the Bailiwick's AML and counter-terrorist financing framework. Broadly, they are designed to prevent a person from alerting a suspect that:

• a Suspicious Activity Report ("SAR") has been made;
• an investigation is underway; or
• law enforcement or the Financial Intelligence Unit (the "FIU") is examining their affairs, where that disclosure could prejudice the investigation.

The offence exists to ensure that suspects do not move or dissipate assets, destroy evidence, alter their behaviour to avoid detection, or take steps that frustrate law enforcement action.

Why the case matters for Guernsey

Reinforces the prohibition on tipping off: R v Osmond confirms that professionals can commit a criminal offence by informing a client about investigative activity where the disclosure is likely to prejudice an AML investigation. This is directly relevant to Guernsey lawyers, accountants, trust professionals and compliance officers.

Focuses on the effect of the disclosure: The Court of Appeal emphasised that the key questions were whether the disclosure was likely to prejudice the investigation and whether the defendant knew or suspected that risk. This analytical framework is likely to be useful when assessing tipping off risks under Guernsey law.

Important for legal professional privilege boundaries: The defendant was a solicitor. The judgment highlights that professional status does not exempt a lawyer from tipping off offences where statutory requirements are engaged. This is particularly significant in Guernsey's legal and fiduciary sectors.

Guidance for handling requests from regulators and investigators: The case arose after confidential information requests from the SFO. Guernsey firms receiving requests from the FIU, Guernsey Financial Services Commission ("GFSC"), Law Officers or overseas authorities should be cautious about what is communicated to clients while investigations are ongoing. The decision confirms that disclosures relating to a specific, non-public aspect of an investigation can constitute tipping off even where the broader investigation is already publicly known.

Useful precedent because appellate authority is limited: The Court of Appeal noted that this was the first appellate decision considering the POCA tipping off provisions and expressly permitted the judgment to be cited. As a result, it is likely to be referred to in discussions of tipping off offences across offshore financial centres, including Guernsey.

The practical point is that firms should avoid giving clients explanations which reveal, or may reveal, that a SAR has been made or that law enforcement, the FIU, the GFSC or another authority is conducting enquiries. Where there is uncertainty, communications should be escalated internally to the money laundering reporting officer (the "MLRO"), compliance team or legal advisers before any explanation is given to the client.

Conclusion

Tipping off remains a serious criminal offence under Guernsey's AML framework. The risk is not limited to banks and may arise for lawyers, accountants, trust companies, fund administrators and other regulated or professional businesses. Once a SAR has been made, or an investigation is known or suspected, firms should exercise extreme caution before communicating with clients or third parties.

R v Osmond is a timely reminder that professional advisers are not insulated from liability by their status. The key question is likely to be whether the disclosure could prejudice an investigation, and whether the person making it knew or suspected that risk. Guernsey firms should ensure that internal escalation procedures, staff training and MLRO/legal oversight are robust enough to prevent inadvertent tipping off.