contact@europos.co.rs
User login
Twitter
LinkedIn
EuroposEuropos
  • AML Data
  • Solutions
    • AML Onboarding & Monitoring
    • Payment Screening
    • Transaction Monitoring
    • API for Developers
  • Partners
  • Industries
    • Banking
    • Payments
    • Lending
    • Investment
    • Gambling & Gaming
    • Regulated & High Risk Corporates
    • Trusts & Corporate Service Providers
    • Insurance
  • About Us
  • Insights
    • Blog
    • Press
    • Knowledgebase
    • Acronym Buster
  • Contact

Commission Comes Down Hard on Directors’ Anti-Money Laundering Failings

November 27, 2015AML, Anti-Terrorist Financing, FinTech, PEPs, Politically Exposed PersonsCharlie Delingpole

It was recently found that the biggest worry for regulatory, compliance and anti-money laundering staff is the risk that they could go to jail if they fail to stop rogue colleagues breaking the law. A case emerging from Guernsey this October confirms that compliance professionals do have good cause to worry about the personal cost they face, should they fail to thoroughly discharge their obligations.

Three executive directors at financial services provider Confiance Ltd. were prohibited from performing the functions of director, controller, partner and money laundering reporting officer for five years.

Four executive directors were fined £50, 000 each.

A £10,000 fine was handed down to a non-executive director.

These penalties were imposed by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission, on the identification of significant failings in Confiance Ltd.’s anti-money laundering and counter- terrorist financing systems and controls which “could” have caused considerable reputational damage to Guernsey.

The fine amounts were initially bigger, discounted on the basis that the directors agreed to settle at a very early stage.

Alongside the £72million fine imposed by the FCA on Barclays yesterday, this is a stark warning that regulators demand relentlessly high standards of relationship risk assessment.

In Guernsey, though, the Commission also underscored the importance of meeting these standards for the duration of the relationship. It’s not enough to simply screen at onboarding. Confiance Ltd. was penalised for its failure to perform “ongoing and effective” monitoring.

If you’re concerned you might fall at the same regulatory hurdle, you can find out more about how we help you proactively monitor your clients here.

-Post by Stephen Ball

Post Views: 0
Previous post The Inclusion of Financial crime as an FCA major risk factor Next post Barclays Hit by £72 Million Fine For Slack Checks on Rich Clients

Never miss a post!

Subscribe to the europos blog today

Recent Posts

  • europos joins Railsbank Platform as the Partner for advanced Anti Money Laundering (AML) risk tools
  • PEP Screening & Monitoring in Canada
  • What does 4MLD mean for Transaction Monitoring?
  • Lord Mayor’s Delegation to Eastern Europe
  • europos wins RemTech Award

Categories

  • Adverse Media
  • AML
  • Anti-Terrorist Financing
  • Banking
  • Developers
  • FinTech
  • KYC
  • MSB
  • PEPs
  • Politically Exposed Persons
  • RegTech
  • Remittances
  • Sanctions
  • Uncategorized
© 2018 All rights reserved. Europos a.d.