Key Takeaways
- Multiple bodies rank jurisdictions differently, so Jersey's grey or black list status depends on whether you look at the EU, FATF or OECD.
- Annex I and Annex II of the EU lists carry distinct meanings, and knowing which applies to Jersey clarifies the real level of concern.
- Past listings and delistings shaped Jersey's present standing, reflecting commitments and action plans rather than a single fixed verdict.
- For non-resident owners, listing status mainly affects due diligence, banking access, and how counterparties perceive a Jersey structure.
Jersey's Standing on the World's Grey and Black Lists: A Single Snapshot
If you are weighing whether to incorporate in or maintain a structure connected to this island, the grey and black list question in Jersey has a clear answer: the jurisdiction sits on none of the lists that matter. It appears on neither the EU's blacklist nor its greylist, and on neither the FATF blacklist nor the FATF greylist. The two reference points are the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions maintained by the Council, and the FATF lists of high-risk and monitored jurisdictions.
This matters to any foreign owner, investor, or adviser because listing status drives how banks, counterparties, and tax authorities treat a structure. The article that follows explains which bodies do the ranking, how Jersey reached its clean position, and what that absence means in practice. It is most relevant to non-resident owners and their advisers screening the island before committing capital or maintaining compliance.
How Listings Work: The Bodies That Rank Jersey and What Each List Means
Two distinct international processes produce the lists a foreign owner needs to understand, and they measure different things. One looks at tax governance; the other looks at money laundering and terrorist financing controls.
On the tax side, the EU Code of Conduct Group screens jurisdictions against criteria covering transparency, fair taxation, and implementation of OECD anti-BEPS measures. The Group was mandated by the ECOFIN Council in November 2016, and the first EU list was formally adopted on 5 December 2017.
The EU list carries two annexes. Annex I names jurisdictions considered non-cooperative; Annex II names those that have committed to reform but have not yet met every criterion.
Updates land twice a year, normally in February and October. When a jurisdiction is found insufficiently compliant, maintaining a harmful practice, or unresponsive, the Group recommends to the Council that it be listed.
On the financial-crime side, the Financial Action Task Force operates separately. Founded by the G7 in 1989, FATF sets the 40 Recommendations that form the basis of AML/CFT frameworks worldwide and publishes its black and grey lists three times a year.
Assessment runs through Mutual Evaluation Reports, peer reviews that test both technical compliance and how effectively rules work in practice. For Jersey as a Crown Dependency, the relevant FATF-style regional body is MONEYVAL, which evaluates members against the same Recommendations on a periodic cycle.
A third body completes the picture. The OECD Global Forum peer-reviews how jurisdictions implement the standards on exchange of information, both on request and automatically.
| Body | What it measures | List or output |
|---|---|---|
| EU Code of Conduct Group | Tax transparency, fair taxation, anti-BEPS | Annex I (black) and Annex II (grey) |
| FATF / MONEYVAL | AML/CFT technical compliance and effectiveness | Black and grey lists; Mutual Evaluation Reports |
| OECD Global Forum | Exchange of information (EOIR and AEOI) | Peer review ratings |
| OECD FHTP | Harmful tax practices, economic substance | NTJ monitoring results |
Company Incorporation in Jersey
Set up your company in Jersey with Expanship handling registration end to end.
The EU Lists Explained: Annex I (Blacklist) and Annex II (Greylist) Status for Jersey
Jersey appears on neither Annex I nor Annex II. That absence is the central fact, and it held through the most recent revision of the EU list released on 17 February 2026.
To put the position in context, Annex I as confirmed in the October 2025 update names eleven jurisdictions: American Samoa, Anguilla, Fiji, Guam, Palau, Panama, the Russian Federation, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, the US Virgin Islands, and Vanuatu. Annex II names a further eleven, including Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, the British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Eswatini, Greenland, Jordan, Montenegro, Morocco, the Seychelles, and Türkiye.
The two annexes carry very different weight. Annex I covers countries that have not engaged constructively with the EU on tax governance or have failed to deliver promised reforms; Annex II signals cooperation and progress, placing a jurisdiction under monitoring rather than sanction.
Listing on Annex I can trigger real cost for groups with entities there: higher withholding taxes, non-deductibility of payments, inclusion under controlled foreign company regimes, or restrictions on the participation exemption for dividends. None of this reaches a Jersey-connected arrangement.
Because the island sits outside both annexes, the EU's defensive measures do not apply on EU-list grounds. That includes DAC6 automatic reporting tied to Annex I, public country-by-country reporting obligations linked to the blacklist, and Member State withholding-tax penalties.
Jersey and the FATF: Current Position on the Grey and Black Lists
Jersey is on neither the FATF blacklist nor the FATF greylist. As of February 2026, the blacklist names only North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar.
The grey list, formally "Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring," ran to twenty-three countries in the June 2025 statement, among them Monaco, South Africa, Nigeria, Vietnam, and the British Virgin Islands. Jersey is absent from that list.
The clean position rests on the MONEYVAL Fifth Round Mutual Evaluation, conducted in 2023 with the report issued in July 2024. The findings were unusually strong: Jersey achieved a level of effectiveness in understanding and mitigating risk held by only three jurisdictions globally, alongside the United Kingdom and Bermuda.
The technical results reinforce the point. Jersey was rated "Compliant" or "Largely Compliant" on 39 of the 40 FATF Recommendations, and scored "High" or "Substantial" against 7 of the 11 Immediate Outcomes that measure effectiveness.
The evaluators singled out the island's beneficial ownership regime for praise, recognising the framework for accuracy and transparency of ownership data. They concluded that no fundamental improvements were required, while noting room to refine practical application.
Grey-listing alone is estimated to cut a small jurisdiction's GDP by roughly 7 percent, a figure cited during Jersey's pre-evaluation work. A clean FATF record removes that risk and the enhanced scrutiny banks apply to exposed jurisdictions.
Ongoing Compliance in Jersey
Keep your Jersey entity compliant with filings, returns, and statutory obligations.
The OECD Assessment: Jersey's Record on Transparency and Harmful Tax Practices
The OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices classes Jersey as one of eleven "no or only nominal tax" jurisdictions, a group that also includes Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands. Under this standard the island has been exchanging information since 2021.
The FHTP reviews these jurisdictions each year, with the latest harmful tax practices results released in February 2026. Jersey, with ten of the twelve such jurisdictions assessed, has a domestic framework that meets the economic substance requirement and is therefore rated "not harmful."
On exchange of information, the OECD's 2024 peer reviews on tax rulings under BEPS Action 5 cover 139 jurisdictions, and Jersey participates as a member of the Inclusive Framework. Across the second round of EOIR peer reviews, 91 percent of the 132 jurisdictions fully reviewed received a satisfactory overall rating, and the island's record on automatic exchange has been continuous since 2017.
History of Listings and Delistings: How Jersey Reached Its Present Status
The first EU list, adopted on 5 December 2017, named 17 non-EU countries on Annex I. Jersey was not among them.
It was, however, placed on the Annex II greylist that month, under the sub-category of jurisdictions required to introduce substance requirements. The same demand fell on Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and Vanuatu.
The greylisting was short-lived. Jersey was among 25 jurisdictions cleared and removed by March 2019, having satisfied the EU's criteria.
The pattern repeats further back. At the April 2009 G20 London summit, jurisdictions were sorted into a blacklist of non-committers and a greylist of non-implementers; Jersey was not blacklisted and moved to full compliance thereafter.
On the financial-crime side, the record is cleaner still. Jersey has never appeared on the FATF blacklist, and the 2024 MONEYVAL evaluation, built on an on-site visit in October 2023, placed it in regular follow-up rather than enhanced follow-up.
Jersey Incorporation Pricing
See transparent pricing to incorporate and maintain a company in Jersey.
Reasons Cited and Commitments Made: The Action Plans Behind Jersey's Position
The 2017 to 2019 greylisting came down to a single issue: substance. The EU asked Crown Dependencies with no or nominal corporate tax to demonstrate that entities enjoying their regimes carry on genuine economic activity rather than booking profit without it.
Jersey's commitment was to introduce substance requirements, the same undertaking required of its peer jurisdictions. It delivered through dedicated economic substance legislation, the Taxation (Companies — Economic Substance) (Jersey) Law 2019, after which the EU removed it from the greylist.
This was part of a wider clean-up. Globally, 13 low or no-tax jurisdictions introduced substance rules to satisfy the EU process, and Jersey was among them; the island has exchanged information under the OECD's no/nominal-tax standard since 2021.
On the AML/CFT side, the MONEYVAL report set no fundamental action plan. It identified opportunities to sharpen practical application, many of which fall to the Government of Jersey and its agencies rather than to private operators, with downstream effects on supervision and enforcement.
Practical Consequences for a Non-Resident Owner: Due Diligence, Banking, and Perception
Because Jersey sits on none of the relevant lists, the elevated compliance burdens that attach to listed jurisdictions do not apply to your structure on these grounds. The defensive measures EU Member States reserve for Annex I jurisdictions, including higher withholding taxes, denied deductions, and stricter reporting, are not in play.
The same logic carries through to banking. Financial institutions must apply Enhanced Due Diligence to clients linked to FATF-listed jurisdictions, gathering granular detail on source of funds, beneficial ownership, and transaction purpose. A counterparty in a FATF-member country is not obliged to apply that elevated scrutiny to a Jersey connection on listing grounds alone.
FATF status drives how banks treat transactions and shapes access to correspondent banking. A clean listing record removes that risk factor and supports the island's standing as a centre able to handle complex cross-border business.
One caveat deserves attention. Individual EU Member States keep their own national lists that can diverge from the EU-harmonised version, so screening against a single domestic regime, such as Germany's Steueroasen-Abwehrverordnung, remains a sensible step.
- Confirm absence from EU Annex I and Annex II before relying on EU-list treatment
- Check the FATF black and grey list statements for any change at the three-times-yearly updates
- Verify the relevant Member State's national list separately, since it may not mirror the EU position
Outlook: Risks of Future Listing and Jersey's Trajectory
The 2024 MONEYVAL result gives a stable base, and regular follow-up means reporting at 2.5-year and then 3-year intervals rather than the intensive cycle applied to weaker performers. The island can request re-rating of any recommendation scored below "Compliant" under either follow-up track.
Future EU listing would require a clear reversal: weakened substance rules, withdrawal from automatic exchange, or a drift away from the BEPS Inclusive Framework minimum standards. Nothing in Government of Jersey policy points that way, and the Code of Conduct Group's rolling biennial screening continues against criteria the island already meets.
The OECD's monitoring keeps a parallel check. The FHTP reviews Jersey's compliance as a no/nominal-tax jurisdiction each year, with the latest results released in February 2026, and continued compliance is the main defence against renewed scrutiny.
One genuine watch point remains. The OECD's Pillar Two global minimum tax keeps evolving, and Jersey has signalled it will adopt a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax; missing the Inclusive Framework timeline could draw attention under BEPS Action 5, though no such risk has materialised.
Conclusion
For a non-resident owner, the practical position is straightforward: Jersey carries no grey or black list flag from either the EU or FATF, and that absence removes the defensive tax measures and enhanced due diligence that burden listed jurisdictions. The track record behind it is consistent, from a brief 2017 greylisting cleared by March 2019 to an elite MONEYVAL rating in 2024. The sensible course is to confirm the live status at the official EU and FATF pages before each major step and to check any relevant national list separately. On the current trajectory, the island's standing supports clean banking access and predictable treatment across cross-border arrangements.
How Expanship Can Help Your Business in Jersey
Expanship advises foreign owners on what Jersey's clean listing status means for a specific structure, including how to evidence it during bank onboarding and counterparty due diligence, and broadens that work into the full set of services a non-resident entity needs on the island.
- Company formation and entity structuring
- Registered agent and registered office services
- Tax registration and filing support
- Ongoing compliance and substance management
- Accounting and bookkeeping
- Introductions to banking partners
To discuss your structure, contact Expanship Jersey.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The jurisdiction appears on neither Annex I nor Annex II of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions, a position confirmed through the revision released on 17 February 2026. It was briefly on the Annex II greylist in 2017 over substance requirements but was cleared by March 2019.
No. It is on neither the FATF blacklist, which names only North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar as of February 2026, nor the grey list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring. The 2024 MONEYVAL Fifth Round evaluation placed it in regular follow-up, the standard category for compliant members.
The evaluation rated Jersey as a strong performer, awarding a level of effectiveness held by only three jurisdictions worldwide alongside the United Kingdom and Bermuda. It scored "Compliant" or "Largely Compliant" on 39 of the 40 FATF Recommendations and found no fundamental improvements were needed.
Yes, favourably. Because the island is not FATF-listed, financial institutions in FATF-member countries are not required to apply Enhanced Due Diligence to a Jersey connection on listing grounds alone, which supports smoother onboarding and correspondent banking access.
Re-listing would require a clear policy reversal, such as weakening substance rules, leaving automatic exchange of information, or falling short of BEPS Inclusive Framework standards. No current Government of Jersey policy points in that direction, though Pillar Two implementation remains a point to monitor.
Yes. Some EU Member States maintain their own national lists that can diverge from the EU-harmonised version, so absence from EU Annex I is necessary but may not be sufficient for every national-level screening requirement.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, or professional advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the content, laws and regulations are subject to change, and the application of laws can vary widely based on specific facts and circumstances.
Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel tailored to their individual situation. Expanship and its authors disclaim any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the content of this article.
For specific advice regarding your business setup, compliance requirements, or any legal matters, please consult with qualified legal and tax professionals in the relevant jurisdiction.
