Jared’s jewellers, JF Jewelers is being accused of breaking anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules.
It is alleged that JF broke AML rules by sending an email to one of its clients, a company named “Gift Box”.
The email was sent to the client and listed several items the client had ordered, including a necklace from JF and a necklace that was marked as a gift for the client.
The email also indicated that the client was unaware that the necklace was not a gift, but a genuine item and was being sent to them.
“We don’t accept returns on jewellery and we only accept genuine items from the jewellery we sell,” the email read.
“We do not offer refunds, however, we would be happy to assist you if you need to make a return to us.”
GiftBox has since received a letter from the Office of the Solicitor General, alleging that the email was not compliant with AML and that the jeweller has breached its agreement with the Attorney General.
Jared’s said the jeweller is in breach of the agreement by failing to comply with AMG’s orders to cease sending emails and to destroy the emails it has received.
As a result, Jared’s said, it has initiated an action against JF, and is pursuing a judicial review of the AG’s order.
Gifts are made out to the Attorney Generals office, the office of the solicitor general, the AG and the Attorney general’s office.
A lawyer representing JF has told the ABC that the firm has no plans to appeal.
However, the firm’s director, JK Johnson, said the AG was correct to have acted.”JF has acted in accordance with our agreements with the AG, and our client has acted as a prudent and prudent business owner,” Mr Johnson said.
“It’s just that he’s acting in the wrong way and I think that’s why he has been prosecuted.”
The jewellering business has been a lucrative source of income for the jewelers, with the company earning $100 million last year, according to data from data company Deloitte.
The jewellery business has also been accused of providing fake information to banks about its customers and, according the AGs Office of Fraud Prevention, it was the company’s failure to comply in the case that led to the AG taking action against the jewells.