Last year saw an unwelcome re-emergence of the so-called ‘laundromat’ scandal; the term, which harks back to the dry-cleaning establishments into which Al Capone and the Chicago mob funnelled their ill-gotten gains, was popularly attributed to a large-scale criminal money laundering scheme (uncovered in 2014) in which $20.8bn was laundered out of Russia through 96 countries and, more recently, to the rapidly developing scandal involving Danske Bank and its Estonian subsidiaries.
Following another week of inconclusive Brexit debate at Westminster, the prospect of a disorderly, no-deal withdrawal seems, either by accident or design, to be looming larger on the horizon.
It occurs to me that whilst many UK authorised firms have made responsible plans for the migration of their European business, many such plans have reasonably assumed that either withdrawal would be governed by an EU / UK trade deal or that that the agreed transition period to 2020 would apply. Or perhaps both.
I expect that the immediacy of the 29 March is now concentrating the minds of boards in all firms whose applications to European regulators have yet to be approved. In particular, I suspect they will be urgently developing contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit, should one occur. (Download fscom's Brexit Planning E-book here)
Better customer service, cleaner user interfaces, simpler language, spending insights and even gambling blocks…digital banks or ‘challenger banks’ as they are commonly referred to, have taken the UK banking market by storm and with features like these, no wonder they are signing up thousands of new customers every day. However, as the large incumbents awaken from their slumber, are they starting to realise they must fight back no matter how much they make light of these new players?
Jamie Cooke, Managing Director of fscom, gives his opinion...
Whether you call them cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets or virtual assets, these tokens and their underlying technology, Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), remain at the forefront of regulators thoughts, often operating in an unregulated or semi-regulated world which sits somewhere between a land of opportunity and the wild wild west.
As we marked the first anniversary of PSD2 implementation (at least, in the UK!) this week, there will doubtless be numerous conversation pieces and reflections about the success of PSD2 so far – and its relationship with Open Banking – and what more delights both have to offer in 2019, the year the UK is supposed to leave the European Union.
Under PSD2, all payment services providers, including credit card providers, money remitters and e-money issuers, account information service providers (AISP) and payment initiation service providers (PISP) are required to file reports in relation to confirmed fraudulent activity, known as the REP017 report.
The REP017 report provides the means for firms through Gabriel to provide the FCA with statistical data on fraud related to different means of payment which in turn is aggregated and shared with the European Banking Authority and European Central Bank.
The first submission for REP017 is scheduled for 31st January 2019 covering the period from the 13th January 2018 to 31st December 2018. For this period, the FCA have published an interim REP017 report to be completed.
This blog aims to give a high-level overview of who REP017 applies to, what transactions it captures and how the data on fraudulent transactions need to be categorised.
fscom is delighted to announce its appointment of Tony Brown as our new Senior Manager in Financial Crime.
Tony brings with him over 15 years of financial services experience to the team specialising in Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crime Prevention.
Assurance, or the use of auditors to search for problems at firms, can be very useful to the regulated community in all manner of ways, especially during the authorisation process or in respect of the EU's Payment Services Directive.