Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

turbobob

From an employee point of view the money laundering regulations basically mean that if you have suspicions about a customer, you have to report them to the MLRO through the firms internal procedure. The act criminalises various offences such as "tipping off" (informing a customer that they are under suspicion for money laundering).

As far as I know, "know your customer" does not extend to having to carry out a criminal records check on customers (business or otherwise). It does though mean that evidence is required to verify their identity. That is why these days if you apply for an account with a financial institution you will have an electronic ID check carried out with a credit reference agency, and if that fails you will be asked for further documentation to prove identity.

wantanswers

Thank's for that turbobob, from what you appear to be saying financial institutions are not legally required to carry out checks especially where criminal convictions are concerned. It would seem that any check is down to the discretion of the MLRO. That appears to be a big responibility for a person, do you know what precisely the role of this person is in these financial institutions and do they have a link with the regulator or police?

turbobob

The MLRO will be responsible for the initially looking into suspicious activity reports received from other areas of the business and if warranted referring to the Police (the Serious Organised Crime Agency). In practice large financial companies will have a specialised department for investigating possible criminal activity.

Yes firms are legally required to check that customers are who they say they are (and keep records of the checks that have been carried out). And they are legally required to have controls to allow them to monitor activity, and to report suspicious activity. Like I said, as far as I know they are not required to carry out a criminal records check on any customers. Theres no rule to say someone with a criminal conviction can't have a bank account or run a business.

A brief general guide to money laundering rules is here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/mlr/getstarted/intro.htm

wantanswers

Thanks once again Turbobob,

Yes firms are legally required to check that customers are who they say they are (and keep records of the checks that have been carried out). And they are legally required to have controls to allow them to monitor activity.

It gives us the chance to view these records and possibly see whatever activity has been monitored.

Thanks.

dunstonh

It gives us the chance to view these records and possibly see whatever activity has been monitored.

You do realise that the check is usually just asking for a copy of your passport or driving licence and a bank statement or similar. The electronic check doesnt even require those as it just checks a database of information.

The FSA check regulated firms are doing it correctly. However, they do not check unregulated firms.

wantanswers

Hello DunstonH, How's the Audi?

Of course I do that’s why any Osama Bin Laden can walk into a bank and open an account, that’s why Money Laundering Regulations were introduced to make sure he’s got a driving licences.

It gives us the chance to view these records and possibly see whatever activity has been monitored.

Like turbobob said the REGULATED firm that sometimes investors DEPOSIT millions in.

wantanswers

Hi All

Does anyone know the Law regarding freezing orders and what defendants must declare?

wantanswers

Freezing Orders - A Practical Guide.



http://www.legal500.com/developments/1273

wantanswers

Identifying the assets

One of the first considerations as a claimant, is to identify what assets a defendant owns (eg property, bank accounts or shares). Unless a claimant has a good idea what assets a defendant possesses, it may be necessary to instruct an investigator to find out what assets the defendant has and where they are situated.
The assets that can be frozen may be located anywhere in the world and need not necessarily be held directly by the defendant or in the defendant's name alone. For instance, the court has jurisdiction to grant a freezing order against a third-party trustee, over property held on trust, if the injuncted defendant exercises control over assets in the trust (see Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Azuri Ltd).

Wonder if that applies to the FSA?

wantanswers

Now could it be.......

Where there's blame there's claim?????



Hard job but not impossible.......Maggie

What did you overlook in 2005 Marge C????

What did GP overlook Maggie????

Lot on your conscience Maggie????

Hope so Madge.