22
IBM
JULY 2013
Tackling Money
Laundering to safegaurd reputation
Richard Collard, transactional Fraud, AML & Risk Expert, IBM
“As the financial services sector comes under increasing scrutiny, banks need to demonstrate that full measures have been put in place to prevent financial crimes”.
Global threat of Financial Crimes and Fraud Rife Despite the introduction of tougher legislation over recent years, money-laundering and financial scandals continue to dominate global news with key stakeholders continuing to lose faith in the financial services industry. To regain trust, financial institutions need to prioritise measures to counter financial crime with more than a simple compliance tick-box exercise and demonstrate to stakeholders that they have the procedures and solutions in place to detect and prevent financial crimes.
It has now been five years since the global financial crisis of 2008, and the conversation in the City has shifted from ‘what can we do to save our banks?’ to ‘what can we do to restore trust in our banks?’. As a result, it is imperative that the industry takes positive steps to address the key concerns of its stakeholders.
The fight against money laundering and terrorist financing (TF) has become an extremely high priority for financial regulators around the globe. The recent, very public, admonishments of poor operational practices at some of the
best known global banking institutions have served to highlight the fact that anti-money laundering (AML) processes, procedures and protocols must be improved to ensure compliance with evolving regulatory requirements. The cost of failing to do so can be astonishing – with settlements ranging from $619 million to $1.92 billion. These record- breaking settlements made the headlines for the financial services sector in 2012 and will continue to do so if firms fail to take extra measures needed to ensure absolute compliance with existing and future AML and TF regulations.
The UK regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), itself declared last year that ‘Although we identified some examples of good AML risk management, we found serious weaknesses common to many firms, particularly in relation to, and quality of, enhanced due diligence and monitoring of high-risk relationships; and the weighting given to AML risk as considered against profitability of accounts and reputational or regulatory risk’.
www.lawyer-monthly.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132