A specialist lawyer in the field of money laundering and financial service regulation has questioned the validity of the European Union’s "white list" of countries whose money laundering controls are considered to be equal to the EU member states.

Stephen Platt, English barrister and chairman of Jersey-based BakerPlatt Group, asks how countries such as Russia, Argentina and Mexico can make the list and points out that Australia and Canada, also on the list, are regarded as less than 25 per cent compliant by the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force into money laundering controls.

The white list countries are seen as having a higher level of control than leading offshore finance jurisdictions including the British Crown Dependencies, a conclusion Mr Platt describes as bewildering.

In conjunction with its partner in London, Seven Bedford Row, BakerPlatt has produced an analysis of the countries included.

“We question why countries that fall behind recognised international standards are on the list, while finance centres such as Jersey, the Bahamas and the Cayman are not,” said Mr Platt, who advises governments and regulators on the implementation of effective regulatory and anti-money laundering rules on the white list.

“Given that the EU recently announced that it is to pursue infringement measures against 15 of its member states for failing to implement the Third Money Laundering Directive into national law, the EU would perhaps be better placed to give a jurisdiction such as Jersey the recognition it deserves, and the role model some of its member states appear to need, as the leader in the field of anti money laundering.”

His firm conducted comparisons between Jersey - which was not included on the list and yet was 76 per cent compliant at the time of the last IMF assessment of the Island in 2003 - and five countries which were included: Australia (24 per cent), Canada (14 per cent), Singapore (23 per cent), Switzerland (22 per cent) and USA (31 per cent) which are nowhere near the compliance standards reached by Jersey.

Analysts suggest that the exclusion of the Crown Dependencies from the white list has been politically motivated, in an attempt to prevent them from competing fairly with EU member states.