Category: General Information & FAQ’s

General AML information and common FAQ’s

  • Money Laundering Transparency & Trust discussion paper

    HM-TreasuryOn 15 July, Dr Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, announced the launch of the Transparency & Trust discussion paper. This sets out a number of proposals aimed at addressing opaque ownership structures and improving the accountability of company directors, to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations.

    The proposed reforms seek to promote growth by improving confidence in the UK as an open and trusted place to invest and do business. Greater transparency and improved trust will mean honest entrepreneurs and investors are more willing to do business in the UK and are not disadvantaged by those who don’t play by the rules.

    Business success, and therefore economic growth, depends on investors, employees, consumers and the wider public having confidence in business. When companies do business with each other, those transactions must also be built on trust.
    An effective and trusted system that identifies and deals with poor business behavior reassures people that we operate fairly, and encourages honest entrepreneurs to invest in activities promoting growth and employment.

    This paper considers a range of proposals to enhance the transparency of UK company ownership and increase trust in UK business, by linking closing with the new Money Laundering Regulations. This will help:

    • prevent illegal activity
    • better enable companies to be held to account
    • provide businesses, investors, employees and consumers with confidence that companies are acting fairly

    The extensive range of proposals to aid money laundering compliance includes;

    • A central registry of beneficial ownership information  to be held at Companies House
    • Extension of Part 22 of the Companies Act extended to all companies, not just PLC’s
    • Validation checks for submissions of beneficial ownership information
    • Proposals to update beneficial ownership as it changes bringing into question the future of the annual return.
    • Making information more publicly available
    • Extending the investigative powers of the 1985 Act to other law enforcement agencies.
    • The abolition of bearer shares.

    Changes will be made to the Companies Act and will be introduced alongside the 4th Money Laundering directive, from which many of the proposals are taken. This joint legislative change will take place 2014/2015.

  • Cyprus damned on money laundering through leaked report

    Almost 60 percent of one of the bailed out Cypriot bank’s clients are “high risk” in terms of money laundering and almost a third of all bank depositors’ records contain errors, according to a leaked EU report.

    The report which was published by the Cypriot website stockwatch.com.cy – was drawn up in April by Moneyval, a unit of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, and by accountancy firm Deloitte on the request of eurozone finance ministers.

    The leaked four-page resume paints a damning picture of what goes on in the mini financial centre which just got €2 billion of EU taxpayers’ money. The full version, containing banks and customers’ names, is still firmly under lock and key.

    Deloitte looked at the six Cypriot banks which hold €2 billion or more in deposits. It then looked at 90 of the biggest big borrowers, worth €16 billion in total loans, 180 big depositors, worth €8 billion and a further 120 randomly selected customers.

    When analysing these customers, in terms of doing business with potential crooks, it found that 10 percent of all of them are “politically exposed persons” and that 58 percent of customers in one of the six banks pose a “high risk” on money laundering.

    It came to this conclusion by the information obtained from “simple commercial database checks” even though the banks themselves had failed to flag them.
    In terms of knowing who their customers really are, Deloitte said 27 percent of all depositors’ files and 11 percent of borrowers’ files “showed inaccurate information on the customer and beneficial owner.”

    It noted that banks rely on “introducers” or professional enablers, that is firms of lawyers and accountants who work for the real owners of accounts for 75 percent of their international business, muddying the water on customer identity.

    It added that when dealing with more “complex” structures – that is accounts held by firms with three or more layers of nominal owners between the bank and the real customer – the banks only did proper ID and KYC checks in just 9 percent of cases.

    These banks launched just four internal probes on potential money laundering on the sample clients between 2008 and 2012. They reported zero “suspicious transactions” to Cypriot authorities in 2008 to 2010, one in 2011 and “a few” in 2012.

    But Deloitte identified 29 potential cases of suspicious activity in the last 12 months alone, some of which it described as “very compelling cases.” “Deloitte’s analysis exposes systemic deficiencies in the implementation of preventive measures by the audited institutions,” the leaked report says.

    “Overall awareness regarding clients presenting higher risk profiles was not demonstrated to be robust,” it adds. The paper gives the lie to Cypriot diplomats and politicians who have been telling media in recent months the island adheres to international standards.

    It also casts doubt on the credibility of Moneyval, whose previous reports gave Cyprus a clean bill of health. “While Moneyval was not able to access actual customer files, its findings significantly revise its previous, more favourable assessment of Cyprus’ AML [anti-money-laundering] system,” the report notes.

    Moneyval, as an intergovernmental body, can only look at the work of Cypriot government institutions, which is one reason why the eurozone ministers brought in Deloitte.
    The man who chairs the ministers’ meetings, Dutch finance chief Jeroen Dijsselbloem, has said the EU will draft an “action plan” for Cyprus to enact if it wants to keep the bailout money flowing.

    German leader Angela Merkel in April also promised the Bundestag that she will clean up Cyprus if MPs approved the EU rescue. But the leaked paper risks making her look bad in the run-up to elections in September.  “It could be quite problematic for Merkel. If German people saw the report, they might say: ‘I would not give my money to such a country’,” an EU diplomat told the website.

  • SmartSearch Gains ICAEW Affinity Statue

    ICAEW Member Rewards Partnership

    SmartSearch are the preferred supplier of KYC and AML solutions for the Institute of Chartered Accounts England & Wales, we work with many of the largest Accountancy Firms, providing a total solution for Accounting Firms for Know Your Customer and Customer Due Diligence.

    Business & Individual AML Verifications on a single Platform

    SmartSearch is the only AML Platform of its type where you can perform both Business and Consumer AML checks. Other unique features include email alerts to MLROs when Sanction, PEP or SIP matches are encountered; also included is ongoing monitoring of all enhanced client records.

    The award winning SmartSearch software platform delivers both Business and Individual AML verification services providing major reductions in red tape bureaucracy, time and cost for Client Firms. A Business AML check can be completed in less than 3 minutes, with Individual checks taking as little as 30 seconds. Neither of these processes require documents to be supplied by customers so you can get on with the business of servicing your clients from day one.

    SmartSearch’s Principal Data Partner is Experian providing SmartSearch with access to over 1 billion data items to enable our positive AML verification process. Dow Jones provides SmartSearch with their “Watch List” to enable negative screening of Sanction and PEP checks. SmartSearch updates this Watch List daily which further enables our daily monitoring service.

    ICAEW Affinity

    The SmartSearch has recently been chosen as the Affinity Partner to provide electronic Anti-money Laundering (AML) Verification for the ICAEW. As a consequence of this partnership we have special discounted pricing arrangements for ICAEW Members, simply quote your membership number to us to qualify for this.

    ICAEW Infinnity Logo

  • HMRC to contact businesses registered under the Money Laundering Regulations

    HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officers will shortly begin a programme of telephoning businesses registered with, and supervised by HMRC under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR).

    These calls will be in addition to and will complement ongoing HMRC compliance activity. HMRC will be contacting businesses to make sure that up to date information is held about their activities. The calls will also further improve HMRC understanding of customers and to find out whether they need any additional help.

    HMRC can ask registered businesses for this information under Regulation 37 of the MLR 2007 and this has proved to be a very cost effective way for both customers and HMRC supervisors to conduct its compliance activity.

    During the calls the HMRC officers will confirm their identity and ask businesses for their security information. They will ask for details of business activities, customers and also answer any questions. This will help HMRC decide whether a visit is needed and give businesses the opportunity to clarify any issues they may have.

    The Revenue carrying out these checks by phone as they are quicker and less invasive than personal visits and if done correctly, HMRC should be able to distinguish based on the evidence gained form the phone call, between firms who understand their obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations and those who do not.

    A minority of supervised firms will be not be up to standard on their compliance to MLR obligations, whereby follow-up action by the way of a personal visit may be appropriate.

  • OFT fines Leicester-based estate agent almost twelve thousand pounds

    The OFT, in its first formal Regulatory penalty, has fined Leicester-based IPS Estate Agents Limited £11,844 for failing to comply with anti-money laundering regulations.

    IPS failed to comply with a number of requirements under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, including those relating to:

    • verifying the identity of customers
    • keeping appropriate records
    • ensuring that relevant staff are aware of the law relating to money laundering and terrorist financing
    • establishing and maintaining appropriate, risk-sensitive policies and procedures.

    The failures relate to the period between March 2010 and October 2011. The OFT visited IPS premises to check compliance with the Regulations in June 2011 and again in October 2011.

    From the scope of the failures for almost all major areas of compliance to the Regulations you can almost conclude that virtually no compliance of any weight was conducted by the firm with no appropriate management policies and procedures for risk management and the subsequent communication and training of any policies to staff members to fulfill their obligations.

    Kate Pitt, OFT Deputy Director of Anti Money Laundering, said:

    ‘This fine sends out a message to all estate agents that they need to have appropriate measures in place to prevent their business from being used for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes.’

  • 20.01.11 UK identity cards can no longer be used to confirm identity under MLR

    Under the Money Laundering Regulations businesses need to carry out customer due diligence on their customers. This involves asking to see documentary evidence of a customer’s identity.

    Since November 2008 the UK Borders Agency (UKBA) has issued an ID card to migrants from countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA). From 21 January 2011 this form of identity will no longer be valid. If you are carrying out customer due diligence on or after that date you should not accept an ID card issued by the UKBA as proof of identity under the Money Laundering Regulations.

    Acceptable forms of documents, data or information will still include passports and photographic driving licences, as well as a range of other paper based evidence, as well as electonic verification reports

  • 07.09.10 Charity Commission publishes advice for donations for the floods in Pakistan

    The Charity Commission, the independent charity regulator for England and Wales, has published advice for people who want to support those affected by the floods in Pakistan, whether by fundraising or by making a personal donation.

    The public’s support is crucial to enable charities to deliver desperately needed aid to Pakistan but it is vital that donations go to a genuine charity so that they reach those in need. Sadly, there are criminals who try to take advantage of the public’s generosity in response such disasters, and the Commission has been made aware in previous emergency appeals, such as the Haiti appeal, of online scams designed to steal charitable donations. These can take the form of fictitious appeal websites, email appeals that falsely use the name of genuine charities, or appeals from fictitious charities.

    The Commission is urging the public to continue giving but to be vigilant, and has the following advice for those who wish to make a donation:

    • Be careful when responding to emails or clicking links within them to ensure that they are genuine. If you have any concerns about the legitimacy of a request for donations that appears to come from a charity, don’t hesitate to contact that charity directly.
    • If you are in any doubt about a charity collector, ask for their identification and the charity’s name and registration number. If you are not happy about giving then and there, you can check to see if the charity is on the public register of charities on the Commission’s website – www.charitycommission.gov.uk.
    • If you are concerned that you may have been targeted by a fundraising scam, you should report this to the police. You should also contact the Charity Commission on 0845 300 0218 or via the website – www.charitycommission.gov.uk.
    • If you want to donate online to a particular charity, visit the charity’s website.
      Think about how you are going to give. If you are a UK taxpayer and donate directly to a charity – whether online, over the phone, by post or by handing in a cheque at the charity’s office or shop – it can claim Gift Aid to maximise your donation.

    An appeal for the Pakistan floods is being run by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC). The money raised will support the efforts of the DEC’s members, which are 13 of the major UK aid agencies and all UK registered charities. Information is on the DEC website – www.dec.org.uk. Numerous other registered charities are involved in the relief efforts and are currently fundraising.

    There are laws around collecting money for charity in public which are there to protect donors and make sure that the money raised goes to a genuine charitable cause. If you want to fundraise for those who have been affected by the Pakistan floods, you should:

    Have the necessary permission from your local authority or the Metropolitan Police if you live in a London borough.
    Only collect using a sealed tin or container.

    • Always make sure you state the name and registration number of the charity you are collecting for.
    • Always make sure there is more than one person to count the collection proceeds and sign off the total amount
      Bank any cash as soon as possible, preferably straight into the charity account. Get a receipt from the Bank/Building Society.
    • Report back to your community so they are reassured that the money has reached the good cause. You may wish to put notices in shops/post offices, or let your local paper know how much you raised and thank people for their support.
  • 22.01.10 Fraud losses cost the UK £30bn a year

    Fraud

    Fraud – including scams, online theft, insurance cheats and tax fraud – costs the UK £30bn a year, according to an official estimate.

    The National Fraud Authority (NFA) has calculated the figure for the first time and said it equated to £621 per adult in the UK. Some 58% of fraud was in the public sector, at a cost of £17bn, it added.

    It said the losses were paid for through taxes and rising prices of products and services.  The highest sector was losses from tax fraud – estimated at £15.2bn – although this was only 3% of tax liabilities, the NFA said.

    According to the NFA, which is part of the UK Attorney General’s Office, some 31% of losses came in the private sector, with the financial services sector suffering the biggest hit.

    It lost an estimated £3.8bn, including £1bn in mortgage fraud. This has prompted the City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, to take a tougher stance against the crime, with a number of brokers having been fined and banned from the industry.

    Another £2bn was lost to insurance fraud, and the remainder came from fraudsters targeting online banking, cheques, and plastic cards.

    The consumer goods industry lost an estimated £1.3bn a year. Manufacturing suffered losses of £1bn a year, and technology, media and telecommunications lost £948m.

    Consumers have also been tricked out of an estimated £3.5bn a year in share, lottery and loan scams. Some 12% of all fraud was suffered by individual consumers.

    “Although the figure appears on the face of it far greater than the previous estimate, we know this is because we have included many additional figures that other studies have not,” said NFA chief executive Bernard Herdan.

    “With this vital information we can develop clearer priorities to prevent, detect and deter fraudsters. We will use the data to help identify those areas of fraud that cause the most harm to the UK economy”.

    Visit the BTC website for compliance help and support for firms in the regulated sector

  • 02.09.09 BTC to participate in HMRC Forum for TCSP’s

    Steve O’Neill of Business Tax Centre has been chosen to be a part of HMRC’s supervisory forum for Trust and Company Service Providers. This is the second such forum organised by HMRC, the first being one for large money service businesses.

    The forums organised by HMRC’s ‘Money Laundering Regulations Team’ meet regularly to facilitate discussions where information is shared, presentations given. These forums are to share best practice tips and ideas and to support the supervisory regime through open dialogue and engagement so that HMRC supervisory and compliance teams and the businesses they supervise can improve their compliance efforts.

    The first meeting of the TCSP’s forum is to be held in London on 5th October 2009. Steve O’Neill will report back on this blog of matters arising and of supervisory ideas and best practice generated at these meetings.

    Visit the BTC website for compliance help and support for firms in the regulated sector.

  • 26.08.09 BTC Challenges HMRC over right to view SAR’s on supervisor compliance visits

    BTC Challenges HMRC over right to view SAR’s on supervisor compliance visits

    HMRC has published its Code of Practice for supervisory purposes for visits to businesses under Money Laundering Regulations (COP28). This Code of Practice tells you what you can expect from HMRC Supervisory staff and what they expect of you when they visit your business under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

    This is a simple but very helpful document for preparing for a supervisory visit under the Regulations, however one item contained within the documents raised concern for Steve O’Neill of BTC, namely;

     Examples of business records the officer is likely to want to see include:

    “Records/copies of suspicious transactions, action taken, copies of any Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR’s) submitted to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and any correspondence from them concerning consent.  We will look at Suspicious Activity Reports for anti-money laundering legislation purposes only and not for tax purposes”.

    It is Steve O’Neill’s (Business Tax Centre’s BTC) understanding that SAR’s are an individual’s obligations covered under the Proceeds of Crime Act and not covered under the Money Laundering Regulations which covers a ‘Firms’ obligations to put into place appropriate policies and procedures for the prevention, detection and reporting of suspicious activity, and not the actual SAR itself which has a subjective test  and offences which are covered in PoCA.

    When HMRC regulatory team was asked about their powers to view a SAR, they responded by way of reference to two sections of the Regulations. One of these references was to CDD only and the other to refers to the ‘Policy and Procedures’ for reporting.

    These correspondences have been passed on to other supervisory authorities who can confirm that their opinion also states that the ML Regulations do not give authority for a supervisor to view a SAR, which should only be done by an accredited and trained financial investigator.   

    We understand from a response received from these bodies that this subject will be raised with HMRC at the next ‘affinity group’ meeting of accountancy and taxation supervisors.

    If HMRC point of view is upheld, then the Treasury approved CCAB guidance and the notes of each professional boy will need to be updated accordingly. We will post updates as we receive them.

    Visit the BTC website for compliance help and support for firms in the regulated sector.