Order set aside regarding the obligation discontinue under the Anti-Money Laundering Act

Two companies engaged in the production of fry and juvenile fish were notified by their insurer that their insurance policies would not be renewed due to the obligation to discontinue under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The companies, originally owned by Russian interests, had now been transferred to a Norwegian company. The insurance company’s basis was that the beneficial ownership was unclear and that customer due diligence measures under section 24 subsection 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act could not be implemented. The companies applied for an interim injunction, arguing that their insurance policies could not be terminated, and the Court of Appeal ruled in their favour. The Supreme Court, having conducted an oral hearing, found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of the law when focusing on an overall assessment of the risk of money laundering rather than the specific obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The Court of Appeal was also wrong in apparently assuming that the beneficial owners did not need to be identified. The Court of Appeal’s order was set aside. Dissenting opinions 4–1.

Read the whole order (PDF)

Areas of law: Public law. Section 24 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act

Key paragraphs: 65, 69 and 71

Justices: Bergsjø, Ringnes, Thyness, Steinsvik, Sæther