1 / 10

Common Deficiencies Identified in Tier 2 AML Examinations

This report highlights various common deficiencies identified in Tier 2 AML examinations conducted by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) in May 2009. The deficiencies include failures in customer due diligence, corporate customer identification, monitoring of PEPs, suspicious transaction reporting, correspondent banking, and private banking practices.

kepley
Download Presentation

Common Deficiencies Identified in Tier 2 AML Examinations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. HONG KONG MONETARY AUTHORITY Common Deficiencies Identified in Tier 2 AML Examinations 12 May 2009

  2. General CDD • Failure to verify nationality of non-permanent HKID holders • Acceptance of expired passports • Failure to record the identity of 3rd parties making large cash deposits • Address proof : failure to obtain or acceptance of out of date documents • Inadequate follow-up on outstanding CDD documentation • 3rd party payments from accounts with outstanding CDD

  3. General CDD • No periodic review of CDD of lower risk accounts in absence of trigger event • Incoming cross border remittance transactions containing incomplete originator information – inadequate monitoring • No periodic re-screening of client list against SFC Alert List • Intermediaries - no assessment of the ‘fit and proper’ standing

  4. Corporate Customers • Failure to identify beneficial owner • Failure to obtain up to date company search documents (incorporated in jurisdiction with public registries) & COI (from regulated parties in non-public registry jurisdictions) • Bearer shares - failure to immobilize or obtain annual declarations from shareholders

  5. Corporate Customers • Failure to properly identify and screen connected parties (i.e. directors, principal shareholders, signatories) • Details of connected parties are not included in AI’s core banking system - resulting in no periodic re-screening against Terrorist/Sanction/PEP lists

  6. PEPs • Excluding known close associates & family members from PEP definition • No regular review of identified PEP accounts • No periodic re-screening of client lists to identify clients whose status may have changed • Failure to screen connected parties to corporate customer

  7. Suspicious Transaction Reporting • No review of the risks associated with reported accounts • Undue reliance on “consent” and the former “Low Risk Classification” • STR provides statutory defense to ML – does not address the legal, reputational, regulatory risks associated with accounts’ continued operation

  8. Correspondent Banking • Exchange of Swift Keys ‘deemed’ establishment of correspondent activity • Failure to obtain sufficient information to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the respondent's AML controls and risk. • AI must satisfy itself respondent • subject to appropriate regulatory oversight • does not maintain relations with shell banks • payable through accounts (special measures required).

  9. Private Banking • Account booked offshore but managed in HK – ‘deemed’ shared relationship • CDD conducted to standard required by HKMA (minimum) • HKMA access to CDD/transaction information upon request

  10. Questions

More Related