In the ever-evolving world of anti-money laundering firms are under more pressure and scrutiny than ever before, especially when it comes to verifying the identity of customers. In this blog, we will consider the regulator’s increased focus on KYC verification and examine scenarios where verifying an individual or entity may pose greater difficulty.
Her Majesty’s Treasury published a consultation paper on the UK’s transposition efforts relating to the EU’s 5th Money Laundering Directive (5MLD) earlier this year. The Directive will come into force on 10th January 2020 and contains enhancements to the existing provisions as mandated by the EU’s 4th Money Laundering Directive (4MLD) which was implemented in the UK through the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
With less than 4 months to go, you should be considering how the proposed changes will impact your business and whether your current approach to financial crime risk management is adequate.
Under PSD2, payment services providers across the EU are required to provide statistical data on fraud to their respective competent authority.
In the UK, relevant firms are required to collect and submit data on the volume and value of all payment transactions, as well as the volume and value of fraudulent transactions, and provide this to the FCA through Gabriel using the REP017 report; this information is in turn aggregated and shared with the European Banking Authority and the European Central Bank.
Back in January, we released a blog to provide an overview of the FCA’s interim REP017 report to cover the reporting period between 13 January to 31 December 2018. However, since then, the FCA has released an updated and much expanded REP017 report (with most PSPs being switched to a bi-annual reporting period).
As with our last one, 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; we will also detail the key changes in approach since then.
Broken down to its most basic level, an audit is a method by which firms seek an external opinion on their policies, procedures, systems and controls. Rather than an exercise in detecting shortcomings and failures, the process of a compliance audit should be viewed as a means of testing an AML/CTF framework to identify opportunities to undertake enhancements as well as highlighting any issues. In essence, the intention is to provide assurance that the firm is operating in an compliant manner within its own specific regulatory framework.
For the first time, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has reached out to provide guidance to firms on creating and maintaining an effective sanctions risk mitigation framework. The guidance is primarily based on the essential criteria which OFAC regards as the tools necessary for firms to achieve their business aims, whilst also mitigating the inherent sanctions risks facing them.
Last month Standard Chartered bank agreed to pay a $1.1 billion for both Anti-Money Laundering and Sanctions violations. This blog is an overview of the bank’s failures in relation to both cross-border violations and what they mean for firms.