|
|
|
|
26 November 2001 The Chief Executive Dear Sir/Madam,
Further guidance on controls
against money laundering Following my letter of 26 September 2001, I am writing to provide further guidance on measures which will help to strengthen controls against money laundering. This draws on experience in Hong Kong as well as on the recent guideline published by the Basel Committee on "Customer due diligence for banks". You may wish to note that the first two recommendations are particularly relevant to transactions with money changers which, as part of their day to day business, normally handle a large amount of bank notes in different currencies.
This principle requires banks not
only to establish the identity of their customers, but also to have a
good understanding of what is normal and reasonable activity for
particular types of customer. This is necessary to identify
transactions that fall outside the regular pattern of an account's
activity and may therefore be unusual or suspicious. In keeping with this, authorized
institutions ("AIs") should take appropriate measures to satisfy
themselves about the source and legitimacy of cash or funds to be
credited to a customer' account or foreign currency bank notes that
the customer wishes to sell. This is particularly the case where large
amounts are involved. This requires a good understanding
of the nature of the customer's business. A judgement needs to be
made whether the total amount of money involved is reasonable or not
having regard to the customer's business and the size of turnover
that it could be expected to generate from legitimate sources. It is
not enough to assume, for example, that large transactions are not
suspicious simply because the nature of the customer' business
typically involves the handling of cash or remittance of funds. Nor
should it be assumed that, because a customer is registered with the
Police as a money changer, the AI does not need to conduct its own due
diligence or ongoing monitoring. AIs should therefore make
appropriate enquiries about the nature of the customer' business at
the time an account is opened and ensure that their understanding is
kept up to date thereafter. Among other things, the country of origin of cash or funds needs to be established. Where cash or funds are believed to derive from a place outside Hong Kong, including the Mainland, AIs should ask themselves two basic questions: Where there are suspicions
about the nature of transactions over an account, institutions should
file a report with the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit ("JFIU")
They may also decide to terminate the relationship with the customer
concerned, in which case they should take care to retain copies of
relevant documents that would help to establish an audit trail for
suspicious funds. In order to satisfy their legal
and regulatory obligations, AIs need to have systems to enable them to
identify and report suspicious transactions. However, it is not enough
to rely simply on the initiative of front-line staff to make ad hoc
reports. AIs also need to have management information systems to
provide managers and compliance officers with timely information on a
regular basis to enable them to detect patterns of unusual or
suspicious activity, particularly in relation to higher risk accounts. AIs should establish criteria
to identify accounts that may be of higher risk from a money
laundering perspective. MIS reports should identify
transactions that are unusual either in terms of amount (for example,
by reference to predetermined limits for the customer in question or
to comparative figures for similar customers) or type of transaction
or other relevant risk factors. High account activity in relation to
the size of the balance on an account may, for example, indicate that
funds are being "washed" through the account and may trigger
further investigation. While a focus on cash transactions is important, it should not be exclusive. AIs should not lose sight of non-cash transactions, e.g. inter-account transfers or inter-bank transfers, particularly when large amounts are involved. The MIS reports referred to above should therefore capture not only cash transactions but also those in other forms. The aim should be to obtain a consolidated picture of the customer' transactions and overall relationship with the bank. It follows from the above that
the role of the compliance officer should not be simply that of a
passive recipient of ad hoc reports of suspicious transactions.
Rather, the compliance officer should play an active role in
the identification and reporting of suspicious transactions. This
should involve regular (preferably daily) review by the compliance
officer of exception reports of large or irregular transactions
generated by the AI' MIS as well as ad hoc reports made by
front-line staff. The compliance officer should form a considered view
whether unusual or suspicious transactions should be reported to the
JFIU. If a decision is made not to report an apparently suspicious
transaction to the JFIU, the reasons for this should be fully
documented by the compliance officer. The fact that a report may
already have been filed with the JFIU in relation to previous
transactions of the customer in question should not necessarily
preclude the making of a fresh report if new suspicions are aroused. More generally, the compliance
officer should have the responsibility of checking on an ongoing basis
that the AI has policies and procedures to ensure compliance with
legal and regulatory requirements and of testing such compliance. It follows from this that AIs
should ensure that the compliance officer is of sufficient status
within the organisation, and has adequate resources, to enable him to
perform his functions. Internal audit also has an important role to play in independently evaluating on a periodic basis an AI' policies and procedures on money laundering. This should include checking the effectiveness of the compliance officer function, the adequacy of MIS reports of large or irregular transactions and the quality of reporting of suspicious transactions. The level of awareness of branch staff of their responsibilities in relation to the prevention of money laundering should also be reviewed. As in the case of the compliance officer, the internal audit function should have sufficient expertise and resources to enable it to carry out its responsibilities. The HKMA' supervisory approach The HKMA has also been reviewing its own supervisory approach towards money laundering, taking into account international developments on this issue. Briefly, the main elements of our enhanced approach will consist of the following: more in-depth examination (with sample
testing and branch visits) to be performed by dedicated teams of
those AIs which may be more vulnerable to money laundering because
of the nature of their business or other risk factors; higher level review of the policies and
procedures on money laundering of other AIs to be conducted as part
of normal risk-based examinations; in appropriate cases (e.g. where an initial
examination has indicated that major inadequacies in controls may
exist) reviews by external auditors under section 59 of the Banking
Ordinance; self-assessment by compliance officers of AIs
on risk indicators of money laundering within their institutions and
the quality of controls (the HKMA will develop a self-assessment
framework for this purpose); further guidance from the HKMA on the
standard requirements for the post of compliance officer; revised guidelines to be issued by the HKMA
on controls against money laundering to take account of the latest
recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force and the Basel
Committee. I hope that you will find the above information helpful. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please get in touch with your usual contact at the HKMA. Yours faithfully, D T R Carse
|
|