Gibraltar Oversight Fails in Fiduciary Trust al-Assad Case

When oversight fails twice: Gibraltar’s silence on Fiduciary Trust and the unanswered questions in the al-Assad affair!

The Rifaat al-Assad money-laundering scandal has already drawn headlines in Europe, from Paris to Madrid, for the sheer scale of its property network and the audacity of its cash-movement techniques. Yet in Gibraltar, where key parts of the financial architecture appear to have been built and maintained, there has been a striking lack of follow-up. Regulators, politicians and even the judiciary have steered clear of robust scrutiny, leaving many to conclude that the Rock’s financial gatekeepers have no appetite to investigate themselves.

Our earlier investigation on 6 May 2025, Why Nobody is Watching Gibraltar, examined the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission’s (GFSC) inertia when faced with clear warning signs. That article explored Jyske Bank’s role in facilitating cash withdrawals in structured amounts allegedly designed to bypass reporting thresholds and the use of more than 90 Gibraltar companies to acquire Spanish real estate valued at around €700 million.

Today’s follow-up considers another angle: how the regulatory vacuum extends beyond the banking sector into the trust and company services industry and how names such as Fiduciary Trust Limited and Peter Isola remain untouched despite their corporate proximity to sanctioned or penalised actors.

A Guernsey fine, a Gibraltar shrug

The Guernsey Financial Services Commission has already taken decisive action in the case of Ginette Louise Blondel, imposing one of its highest ever individual fines and a ban from financial work. Blondel’s directorship of Cesara Ltd and involvement in at least seven other al-Assad-linked companies placed her in the crosshairs of Guernsey’s enforcement arm.

But the corporate shareholder of Cesara Ltd was Fiduciary Trust Limited, a Gibraltar-based firm associated with lawyer and businessman Peter Isola. Fiduciary Trust has also appeared as shareholder in other high-profile entities, such as Mansion GP Limited, in which regulatory questions have arisen in unrelated matters.

In most regulated jurisdictions, such corporate intersections would have triggered at least an internal review, if not a formal investigation. Yet in Gibraltar, the GFSC has made no public statement about Fiduciary Trust’s role, no announcement of disciplinary steps and no indication that it considers the matter worthy of scrutiny.

The due diligence question

If Fiduciary Trust’s defenders argue that the firm had no knowledge of the source of its clients’ wealth, that itself raises troubling issues. Trust and company service providers (TCSPs) in Gibraltar operate under strict anti-money laundering (AML) obligations, including client identification, ongoing monitoring and enhanced due diligence for high-risk relationships.

The al-Assad family, with a history of international sanctions, corruption allegations and asset seizures, would clearly qualify as high-risk. The notion that a TCSP could hold shares in companies linked to this network without identifying or mitigating those risks raises concerns about either compliance standards or enforcement priorities within Gibraltar’s financial sector.

A judiciary under lingering suspicion

Compounding the perception problem is Gibraltar’s judiciary, which has faced its own questions about impartiality. In the high-profile dispute Mansion Group v Karel Manasco, earlier reporting by Malta Media highlighted concerns about Chief Justice Anthony Dudley’s recusal decisions. The refusal to step aside in certain related matters has led observers to question whether Gibraltar’s legal system can be seen as independent in cases touching politically or commercially sensitive actors.

In this context, Manasco’s own conduct stands in stark contrast. Throughout protracted legal proceedings, he has maintained a consistent and principled stance, pushing for transparency and due process even when facing sustained institutional resistance. His treatment by certain quarters in Gibraltar has been telling, suggesting that those who challenge the prevailing order do so at personal cost.

The Europort connection

European investigative files and French sentencing documents have long highlighted the Europort complex in Gibraltar as a point of interest in the Rifaat al-Assad money-laundering affair. Reporting by KYC360 (“The Road from Damascus: Europort, Gibraltar and the Butcher of Hama”) detailed that buildings 6-9 of Europort were until recently owned indirectly by a close relative of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

It further noted that the Europort Trust (the corporate owner of the complex) was, at the time, managed by trustees including Fiduciary Trust Limited. The same reporting observed that asset freezes affecting the Assad network in France and Spain had not extended to Gibraltar and that the trustees sought to sell the complex to another Gibraltar trust. The Gibraltar Supreme Court later approved such a sale, determining that the trustees’ belief in the legitimate provenance of acquisition funds was “considered and reasonable”.

However, court documents also recorded that Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) had unilaterally blocked fund movements by the Europort Trust and related parties, suggesting that relevant authorities may have been in possession of additional undisclosed information.

The Isola Family

Both the KYC360 investigation and the Europort Trust Statement issued by Fiduciary Trust Limited confirm that the proposed purchaser of the Europort complex was Glenthorne Holdings Limited, a Gibraltar trust reportedly 75% owned by family trusts of Albert Isola, Peter Isola and Lawrence Isola.

According to KYC360, Albert Isola is Gibraltar’s Minister for Financial Services and Gaming, Peter Isola is Senior Partner at ISOLAS LLP and a Director of the Gibraltar International Bank as well as a member of the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission’s Board and Lawrence Isola is CEO of Sapphire Group, a broadband provider closely linked to the gaming sector.

The Europort Trust Statement, issued to address perceived misreporting of the transaction, emphasised that the £17.5 million purchase price reflected significant debts and liabilities attached to the holding company and that the sale was conducted in full compliance with applicable trust law, with court approval and beneficiary consent.

While the statement rejects any suggestion of impropriety, the overlap between political office, regulatory oversight roles and beneficial ownership of high-value assets formerly linked in foreign proceedings to politically exposed persons raises legitimate questions about conflict-management safeguards and the adequacy of Gibraltar’s institutional checks in such transactions

Jyske Bank’s departure without answers

Jyske Bank’s closure of its Gibraltar branch was officially framed as a strategic withdrawal, with no reference to the allegations emerging from European court proceedings. Yet the bank’s compliance failures over nearly two decades form part of a documented pattern of risk-tolerance toward politically exposed or high-risk clients.

The absence of any GFSC-led post-mortem into these failures suggests that Gibraltar has no institutional mechanism for learning from such episodes, let alone preventing their recurrence.

An institutional reluctance to self-examine

The Fiduciary Trust episode is emblematic of a deeper issue. Gibraltar’s regulatory architecture appears reluctant to investigate domestic actors who form part of its economic establishment, even when their foreign counterparts face sanctions, fines or bans for related conduct.

Without public inquiries, enforcement actions or legislative reform to address these weaknesses, the message sent to the international community is that Gibraltar remains a jurisdiction where enforcement stops at the water’s edge.

Why this matters now

Europe’s AML framework is tightening, with the forthcoming EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) set to oversee certain high-risk sectors directly. While Gibraltar is not in the EU, its reputation remains crucial for maintaining correspondent banking relationships, attracting legitimate investment and avoiding grey-listing by bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

The decision to ignore red flags connected to Fiduciary Trust and the al-Assad network risks reputational damage that will far outweigh any short-term protection of local interests.

The unanswered questions

Several questions now demand answers if Gibraltar is to claim credibility as a financial centre:

• Why has the GFSC not issued any public statement regarding Fiduciary Trust’s corporate role in al-Assad-linked companies?
• What due diligence was conducted by Fiduciary Trust in relation to these clients?
• Has there been any internal review of Europort property transactions linked to the network?
• Why was there no public inquiry into Jyske Bank’s compliance history before its exit?
• What safeguards exist to ensure judicial impartiality in cases involving the financial establishment?

Until these questions are addressed, Gibraltar’s assurances of robust regulation will ring hollow.

A different path

The treatment of figures like Karel Manasco, who have challenged the status quo and advocated for transparency, shows that there is another way forward. Rather than shielding entrenched interests, Gibraltar’s institutions could choose to embrace external scrutiny, strengthen AML enforcement and ensure that no player is seen as untouchable.

This is not simply a matter of legal compliance. It is about demonstrating to global markets that Gibraltar is capable of policing itself, even when doing so is politically or commercially inconvenient.

Final Thoughts and our Conclusion

The al-Assad case will not fade quietly. With investigative journalists, European prosecutors and NGOs continuing to probe the network’s assets, Gibraltar’s role will remain under the microscope. The decision now rests with its regulators, judiciary and political leadership: confront the failures or continue to look away.

Our previous article, Why Nobody is Watching Gibraltar, set out the initial failings in stark terms. This follow-up makes clear that the problem is not limited to one bank or one case, but is rooted in an institutional reluctance to hold key domestic actors to account.

Read the original article here: Why Nobody is Watching Gibraltar

FAQs

What is the al-Assad money-laundering scandal?
The scandal involves the movement of assets and property across Europe linked to Rifaat al-Assad, raising concerns about regulatory oversight.

Why is Gibraltar under scrutiny in this case?
Gibraltar is criticized for a lack of investigation into Fiduciary Trust Limited and other domestic actors connected to the al-Assad network.

Who is Fiduciary Trust Limited?
Fiduciary Trust is a Gibraltar-based trust and company service provider linked to high-risk clients, including companies associated with the al-Assad network.

What role did Jyske Bank play?
Jyske Bank (Gibraltar) facilitated structured cash withdrawals and blocked certain fund movements linked to the Europort Trust, raising compliance concerns.

Has Gibraltar taken any action against Fiduciary Trust?
No public statements, disciplinary actions, or formal investigations have been announced regarding Fiduciary Trust’s role in al-Assad-linked entities.

Why is due diligence important for trust and company service providers?
TCSPs must follow anti-money laundering rules, including client identification and risk monitoring, especially for politically exposed persons or high-risk clients.

What is the Europort connection in Gibraltar?
Europort buildings were indirectly owned by al-Assad family members, with Fiduciary Trust managing the assets, later approved for sale by the Gibraltar Supreme Court.

Who are the Isola family and why are they relevant?
Members of the Isola family hold political, regulatory, and corporate positions in Gibraltar and are connected to entities that purchased Europort properties.

How does this affect Gibraltar’s reputation?
Ignoring red flags risks reputational damage, potentially affecting correspondent banking relationships, investment, and compliance with global AML standards.

What reforms could improve Gibraltar’s oversight?
Stronger AML enforcement, transparent judicial processes, external scrutiny, and internal reviews of high-risk transactions could enhance regulatory credibility.