Tag: client verification

  • Customer Verification using Biometric Facial Recognition

    Customer Verification using Facial Recognition

    Verification using facial recognition is becoming an increasingly popular part of the customer on-boarding process. Under government COVID-19 regulations, many prospective clients are no longer able to present their documents in person or using physical documents. With continued restrictions on social contact, firms that rely on paper-based ID checks are facing significant business disruption. These include:

    1. Lockdowns can make it difficult for individuals to get to post offices to send ID documents.
    2. There is an increased risk of contamination when sending physical documents.
    3. Working from home can sometimes make it risky to send sensitive personal data to staff home addresses.

    How can we help?

    Our electronic verification (EV) services solve all these issues so that regulated firms can carry on serving clients without disruption. In addition to our usual EV solutions, we offer Biometric Facial Recognition as part of the customer on-boarding process. These services apply to both UK and overseas individual checks.

    This helps to mitigate the risk that the “Customer not present” element of the Money Laundering Regulations presents when customers are unable to send physical identification.

     

    Customer Verification using Facial Recognition: How does it work?

    It is a simple process which uses digital copies of documents rather than their physical counterparts. A good scanned copy of any government issued document which features the customer’s face, such as a passport, can be used. The digital copy can be verified either by:

    • uploading it directly from the customer’s computer or
    • sending the client an upload link via a free SMS

    The customer is verified using biometric facial recognition on the digital document. The results include both a check on the document as well as facial recognition information. This is in addition to the usual AML UK residential report.

     

    Customer Verification using Facial Recognition: How much does it cost?

    The biometric facial recognition element is £15 + VAT in addition to the normal UK search rate.

    This offers incredible value in completing the on-boarding process in these difficult times. Furthermore, under proposed UK Government consultations it is likely that biometric facial recognition will become the preferred method of customer verification.

    Please contact us for more details or to arrange a quote. You may also be interested in our enhanced facial recognition service which uses TripleCheck.

  • Anti Money Laundering verification platform

    SmartSearch is Ready for the 2017 Anti-Money Laundering regulations

    The unique SmartSearch Anti Money Laundering verification platform is enabling regulated businesses to comply with the latest 2017 Anti Money Laundering (AML) Regulations and fulfil their AML, Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance obligations.   With no requirement for clients to provide identity documents, the SmartSearch is much more convenient and cost effective for both your firm and your clients.  

    The unique platform brings together both Individual and Business searches for the UK and International Markets with automatic Worldwide Sanction & PEP screening.” It will give you complete functionality to process any type of AML search all from a single and easy to use platform.  

    The Real-time hosting of all your businesses search activity and AML outcomes enables you to recall on-demand any AML outcomes to support an internal audit or an external visit from your supervisory body or regulator.  

    Access to the SmartSearch Platform through Business Tax Centre is on a ‘pay as you have used basis’ with no formal contractual amount payable, pay for your usage only.

  • Client Due Diligence – Beneficial Ownership list to be public, PM states

    David CameronA list of “shell” companies where firms keep money offshore will be published to discourage tax evasion, David Cameron has announced, making changes to client due diligence for obliged entities.

    Ministers had already announced the register, intended to lift the “cloak of secrecy” around company ownership contained within the consultation document for ‘Trust and Transparency For UK Companies’. This consultation also raised a number areas of weaknesses concerning ownership and control and will affect client due diligence procedures for regulated entities.

    More changes to the way UK companies declare ownership and control will be made by amendments to the Companies Act 2006 to bring the requirements in line with the fourth European Directive on Money Laundering and updated European Data protection Act, both expected to clear the European Parliament early 2014.

    The prime minister said making the register public will make it easier for firms and developing countries to know who they are doing business with. Labour, anti-corruption campaigners and charities welcomed the move.

    Speaking at the Open Government Partnership summit in London, Mr Cameron said a small minority of companies have hidden their business dealings in a “complex web of shell companies” for too long.

    Untraceable Trails

    “This cloak of secrecy has fuelled all manner of questionable practice and downright illegality,” he said.

    “Illegality that is bad for the developing world – as corrupt regimes stash their money abroad under different identities.

    “And illegality that is bad for Britain’s economy too – as people evade their taxes through untraceable trails of paperwork.

    “Not only is this hugely unfair to the millions of hard-working people in Britain who pay their tax but it’s also bad for business.”

    Mr Cameron made tax transparency a key issue at the G8 summit earlier this year, and he will say he is “delighted” to announce the “central register of company beneficial ownership” will be publicly available.

    World leaders discussed tax avoidance and evasion at the G8 earlier this year

    He will also urge other world leaders to live up to commitments they made at the summit in Northern Ireland.

    Shadow treasury minister Shabana Mahmood welcomed the announcement of the public register but said the government must go “much further to tackle tax avoidance”.

    “With the amount of uncollected tax rising in the last year to £35bn, it’s clear this government is failing,” she said.

    She accused the government of failing to close tax loopholes and said it should be “doing more to open up tax havens”.

    There is a distinction between tax avoidance – legal measures to avoid paying tax – and illegal tax evasion.

    Getaway cars

    Roger Barker, of the Institute of Directors, also welcomed the move, saying it was “right that the true owners of companies should be transparent both to the company itself and the wider business community”.

    He added: “Significant practical challenges remain in order to ensure that any register of beneficial ownership is accurate and robust, but we support government efforts to begin this process”.

    Gavin Hayman, of anti-corruption campaigners Global Witness, said: “Anonymous shell companies are the global getaway cars for crime, corruption and tax evasion.

    “Full credit should go to the prime minister and the business secretary (Vince Cable) for acting to take away the keys.”

    And Chris Bain, director of aid charity Cafod, said: “It is both the right thing to do as it will support the global fight against money laundering and tax evasion, and also shows that the government has listened to public opinion.”

    He said the register would be “vital” for those fighting to prevent money intended for poverty eradication being “siphoned off”.

  • 26.04.11 Thousands of UK passports ‘thrown out with rubbish’

    UK Passport
    UK Passport

    Some 10,000 passports a year are probably thrown in bins, says the UK’s Identity and Passport Service (IPS).  Launching a campaign urging people to keep passports safe, it warns the same number are lost in bars and clubs.

    The IPS said it had had reports of passports being stolen at gunpoint in Brazil, lost in jail, and left in the pocket of a coat donated to a tramp.

    The IPS based its findings on analysis of applications for replacement passports, which cost £77.50.

    Men replace more than 162,500 lost and stolen passports a year compared with about 112,000 by women, the IPS says. Of all the lost and stolen passports in the UK, people in their 20s were responsible for 42.8% of the total – more than twice as many as the next nearest age group. 

    Lost and stolen by age

    • Teenagers – 6.3%
    • 20s – 42.8%
    • 30s – 20.8%
    • 40s – 12.8%
    • 50s – 10.2%
    • 60s – 5.3%
    • 70s – 1.6%
    • 80s – 0.2%

    Those in their 30s lost 20.8% followed by people in their 40s, who lost 12.8%.

    IPS chief executive Sarah Rapson warned that passports were becoming increasingly attractive to criminal gangs wanting to steal identities.

    She said: “It’s really important that you keep it safe both when you are at home and when you’re abroad. “Remember to put your passport away after use. Don’t leave it in a trouser or shirt pocket in the laundry pile.”

    Some of the colourful reasons given for why people were parted from their passports include:

    • Taxi attacked by gunman on way to airport in Brazil
    • Fell out of bag while snowboarding
    • Drunk boyfriend (now ex) destroyed it
    • Last seen in pocket of a coat donated to tramp
    • Wallet stolen at children’s party with passport inside
    • Passports stored in safe in Turkish villa, thieves stole safe
    • Put in bin by infant daughter; and
    • Put on a fire with clothes

    The service advised people to keep their passport in a place they can remember and to only carry it when absolutely necessary.

    It said people should use alternatives if they needed to prove their age and should keep a note of the number to help speed up the issuing of replacements.

  • 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

  • 03.08.09 Identity fraud soars in 2009

    New Cifas stats paint bleak picture for the UK’s financial institutions and card companies.

    Identity fraud surged by nearly three quarters in the first half of the year, driven by continued malicious online activity, and the economic slowdown, according to new figures from UK fraud prevention service Cifas.

    The organisation was set up to facilitate the sharing of information on identified fraud between its members – which include banks, card companies and insurance firms – in an attempt to prevent further rises in all types of fraud, including online.

    It said identity fraud, which includes victims of impersonation as well as the creation of fictitious identities by fraudsters, rose 74 per cent in the first six months of 2009 to over 100,000 cases.

    Facility take over fraud – where the fraudster gains access to a user’s account and siphons off funds – rose 40 per cent during the period with over 11,000 cases registered.

    There was some good for fraud departments however, with Cifas reporting an 11 per cent year-on-year increase in the financial losses avoided through the fraud data sharing of its members.

    “The rise in the numbers of victims, and these very specific types of fraud demonstrate that fraudsters have no regard for economic, social and personal fragility,” argued Cifas chief exeutive Peter Hurst.

    “While we all look for solutions to the hardships imposed by the current climate, however, these figures focus attention sharply on what responsible businesses and public sector organisations can achieve through sharing data on proven frauds to reduce losses and ease the burden of the recession upon us all. ”

    Although not broken out in the survey, it’s believed that much fraudulent activity committed today is card not present (CNP), including online, fraud.

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

  • 22.04.09 MLR – acting for family members

    If you have known somebody as a close relative for 40 years do you still need to ID him before accepting instructions?

    AccountingWEB.co.uk 22-Apr-2009

    Common sense approach
    This post assumes that you are acting for your friends and relatives’ by the way of businesses and not in just a ‘family’ capacity which was never designed to be a part of the ML Regulations, for example a wife doing the books for her husband who may be a plumber

    The Regulations actually state “identifying the client and verifying the client’s identity on the basis of documents, data or information obtained from a reliable and independent source;” Nowhere in the Regulations states that you must have documentary evidence on any client.

    Information may be in any form, including word of mouth or personal experience etc, someone you know and trust may confirm a clients identity, your mother may confirm that the gentleman you are acting for really is your father (hopefully), and indeed you have probably visited your mothers house so you have information as to the home address.

    We already know that it is not in the public interest to prosecute a regulated person who may commit a trivial or technical breach of the Regulations, this has been stated by SOCA and other law enforcement agencies, so you will should not receive any penalty for not having a copy of your mothers’ passport, so an element of common sense prevails. So document that it is your father and you been to his house, this would suffice for any Supervisory staff who may ask, if it does not then I would suggest that the supervisor gets retrained.

    The problem with friends and relatives is not the knowing of who they are, but are you independent enough to effectively ‘police’ them. For example, you act for your farther and you discovered you father was involved in drugs dealing, could you file a SAR on him? If you could not, you stand a very good chance of being investigated along side your relative for those offences since you are ‘aiding and betting’ by turning a blind eye, especially if you continue to act. You can choose who you act for, who you want to be friends with, but in some respects you cannot choose your relatives.

    Do not forget that a risk assessment is mandatory for all clients, including your relatives; here you would document your policy of what you would do to mitigate any potential risk of loosing your independence because of your association with the client relative. For example, your firm may be the agent, but an independent member of staff may complete most of the initial work.

    Steve O’Neill
    Business Tax Centre

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

  • Ongoing Monitoring – What are the practical implementations for existing clients?

    Do the requirements to carry out ongoing monitoring of customer due diligence measures and client’s business relationships mean that you must obtain a passport and utility bill from your existing clients or that you must investigate all the business affairs of your clients?

    For many existing clients which date from 1 March 2004 you will have obtained verification of their identity under the 2003 regulations. For those clients you will need to consider whether the information you hold is sufficient, based on your risk assessment of the client , to demonstrate your have taken appropriate steps to verify the identity of your client and whether anything has changed in the period to render that information out of date. For clients whose situation, address, name and business has not changed since you last considered their identity we would suggest you need do no more than commit your risk assessment and review to the file.

    For clients where the situation has changed or who predate 2004 you may well have obtained official verification of matters such as name and address through correspondence with government offices, bank statements and similar official channels. It is suggested that you undertake these checks during the planning for the next engagement for the client.

    The key issues are:

    • Have you undertaken a risk assessment of the client ?
    • Do you have information which supports your verification of the client’s identity and which is consistent with your risk assessment?
    • Can you demonstrate what you have done if asked to evidence your customer due diligence measures?

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

  • FSA fines firm and MLRO for money laundering controls failings

    FSA fines firm and MLRO for money laundering controls failings

    The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today fined Sindicatum Holdings Limited (SHL) £49,000 and its money laundering reporting officer (MLRO), Michael Wheelhouse, £17,500 for not having adequate anti-money laundering systems and controls in place for verifying and recording clients’ identities. This is the first time the FSA has fined a money laundering reporting officer.

    The FSA found a number of failings including:
    • the firm failed to implement adequate procedures for verifying the identity of its clients;
    • it failed to verify adequately the identity of a significant number of its clients;
    • it failed to keep adequate records with regard to the verification of the identity of its clients; and
    • Mr Wheelhouse failed to take reasonable steps to implement adequate procedures for controlling money laundering risk.

    William Amos, head of retail enforcement at the FSA, said:
    “It is vital to the integrity of the UK’s financial markets that regulated firms are not used by criminals to launder money. Senior management must implement and follow procedures that meet our requirements so that the risks their firms face are properly managed.”

    “This fine is a warning to firms and individuals about the importance of complying with our rules in this area and we will not hesitate to clamp down on failures, where necessary.”

    In deciding the penalty for SHL, the FSA took into account the limited financial resources of the firm and its ability to pay the fine. Had it not been for these factors the penalty would have been significantly larger.

    SHL and Mr Wheelhouse have taken robust steps to review and improve the firm’s systems and controls in relation to financial crime.

    The FSA did not find any evidence of money laundering at the firm.

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

  • financial criminals and disqualified directors in UK Companies House Register

    World-Check exposes terrorists, financial criminals and disqualified directors in UK Companies House Register  

    World-Check, in partnership with data quality specialist Datanomic, recently embarked on a project to screen the UK’s Companies House register of companies, company directors and secretaries against World-Check’s global database of high risk individuals and organisations.

    The underlying aim of the project was to identify the growing number of high risk individuals registering and operating businesses in the UK. Two articles appeared in The Times newspaper you can read them directly from the newspaper.

    The first article entitled ‘4000 company directors listed as global terror suspects and fraudsters’ and the second one ‘Buckinghamshire firm run by Croation war crimes suspect Ivan Cermak’.