PROCESSING...

Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD

FCAC Supervision Framework

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) Supervision Framework updates and replaces FCAC’s current Compliance Framework. The updates provide a clearer and deeper understanding of how FCAC fulfills its mandate to protect financial consumers.

The current Compliance Framework combined the supervision and enforcement divisions.  Under the New Supervision Framework, there will be three separate divisions:

  1. Promotion/Policy Division;
  2. Supervision/Monitoring Division; and
  3. Enforcement Division.

Who Does This Apply To?

The FCAC supervises the market conduct of federally regulated entities, these fall into two categories:

Tier 1 regulated entities – entities where business activities inherently include market conduct risk and nature of the products or services offered by tier 1 entities requires compliance with market conduct obligations overseen by FCAC. These include entities such as Federally Regulated Financial Institutions (FRFIs) that offering retail products and services to consumers; payment card network operators who offer payment services to merchants; and external complaints bodies (ECBs) offering dispute resolution services to member banks.

Tier 2 includes regulated entities such as banks and trust companies that do not offer retail products and services, or insurance companies that restrict their business to the sale of insurance. FCAC monitors tier 2 regulated entities significantly less than tier 1 regulated entities.

What Do You Need To Do?

FCAC expects regulated entities to proactively identify, address, monitor and keep FCAC updated on their risks and controls. Also, they expect regulated entities to proactively report to FCAC any material developments that could change their market conduct risk.

Tools For Promotion

The FCAC promotes responsible market conduct by communicating expectations and interpretations using various tools. The FCAC will continue to promote responsible market conduct using guidelines and decisions, but will introduce a rulings process. Although rulings apply to a particular case and its specific circumstances, publishing information about the ruling provides direction to entities of similar nature.

Tools For Monitoring

FCAC monitoring activities include gathering and assessing information and introduces new monitoring tools. One such tool is the maintenance of a market conduct profile for each tier 1 regulated entity, which will help identify the entity’s risk profile.

Tools For Enforcement

Enforcement begins with the process of investigating a potential breach of a market conduct obligation. Such investigations may lead to the issuance of either a compliance report which is included in the existing FCAC Compliance Framework or a notice of breach which is a new tool under the Supervision Framework. There are three levels of a notice of breach.

What path of action the FCAC will take when it comes to enforcement remains unclear, but perhaps the new ruling process discussed within the new Framework will be helpful for organizations.

When Does This Come Into Force?

It was expected that the FCAC would commence implementation of the Supervision Framework on November 1, 2017 and that the FCAC internal processes and tools that will be used (i.e. revised Publishing Principles) will likely come at a later date. This has now been extended to sometime in 2018. The FCAC’s website is vague on details as to when exactly enforcement will start or as to reasons why enforcement has been pushed out.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions about these changes, or compliance in general, please contact us.

The Secret Project: 2017

Thank you to the Canadian MSB Association for allowing us to present our research findings at the 2017 Fall Conference.

Money Services Business (MSB) and bitcoin business banking in Canada is the most significant barrier to entry. We set out to prove that the derisking crisis is real. In a first world country, this is absurd. We hope that this research facilitates an open and honest dialogue, that includes those with the power to improve the situation.

For those that have asked, here are our slides:

The Secret Project- MSB Banking (PDF)

The Secret Project- MSB Banking (PowerPoint)

Raw data: use it as you see fit. Seriously. We believe in open source. Information wants to be free.

Google Drive Access

A video of the presentation will follow.

 

Canada’s 2017 Budget & PCMLTFA Updates

Greetings fellow compliance geeks!

As you may know, Canada’s latest budget bill contains a number of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA). We’ve created a marked up version of the PCMLTFA to help you work through and understand the changes, and you can access it using the link below with this caveat: you are welcome to use and share this markup, but you may not charge money for access to it. Information should be free.

Yes, I get it, give me access!

If you prefer a copy of the markups in Microsoft Word, please contact us.

Analysis Notes

The biggest takeaway from these amendments is related to section 5 (e.1), which adds “trust companies incorporated or formed by or under a provincial Act that are not regulated by a provincial Act” as being federally regulated entities. This has been a loophole in Canadian legislation for a long time, and was called out in Canada’s most recent mutual evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). If you’re company falls into this category, it’s time to start thinking about anti money laundering (AML) compliance. If you have business arrangements (clients, suppliers, etc.) that are unregulated provincial trusts, there are a few early steps that you might want to consider:

  • Re-assess the AML risk that these provincial trust companies pose;
  • Reach out to ask if they have a Compliance Officer and an AML program (in some cases, you will be pleasantly surprised); and
  • Consider whether or not additional controls are required to mitigate the risk posed.

The additional information that’s changing includes a lot of items that most us would consider housekeeping, like changing foreign country to foreign state in a number of places, and adding bullet points to what is considered “prescribed information:”

  • the name, address, electronic mail address and telephone number of every trustee and every known beneficiary and settlor of a trust referred to in paragraph (a);
  • the name, address, electronic mail address and telephone number of each person who owns or controls, directly or indirectly, 25 % or more of an entity referred to in paragraph (a), other than a trust; and
  • information respecting the ownership, control and structure of an entity referred to in paragraph (a).

The only piece there that will be new (at least in terms of requirements) is the “electronic mail address” (email) for beneficial owners. If you’re not already collecting this information, it’s time to think about how to get started. If you’re collecting the email address, but its optional, consider making it a required field.

The modifications also give the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) the ability to share information with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a threat. Presumably, this would include contexts like a terrorist attack on Canada. It’s somewhat surprising that this was not already in place.

There have also been changes to the things about which “the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make any regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act, including regulations…” These are interesting in thinking about what may be next in line for additional regulation:

  • respecting dealing in virtual currencies;
  • respecting the keeping of records referred to in section 6;
  • respecting the verification of the identity of persons and entities referred to in section 6.1; (d) respecting the reports to the Centre referred to in section 7 and subsections 7.1(1) and 9(1);
  • respecting the determination of whether a person is a person described in any of paragraphs 9.3(1)(a) to (c);
  • respecting the measures referred to in subsections 9.3(2) and (2.1);
  • respecting the measures referred to in subsection 9.4(1);
  • respecting the program referred to in subsection 9.6(1);
  • respecting the special measures referred to in subsection 9.6(3);
  • respecting the registration referred to in sections 11.1 to 11.2;
  • respecting the reports referred to in subsection 12(1); and
  • prescribing anything that by this Act is to be prescribed.

The only truly interesting point here is dealing in virtual currency, which also came up in Bill C-31 which passed in 2014. This bill, also called the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, has not been fully implemented. Some of its provisions (including those specifically related to including dealing in virtual currency under the definition of money services businesses) are also being amended. In the markups, these changes are highlighted in blue rather than in yellow to distinguish between the two.

Finally, there is a change to the definition of a head of an international organization. This one seems a bit nitpicky to me, but if you’re in the process of updating your documentation for the changes that are coming into force in June of this year, you might want to consider this as well. Head of an international organization (HIO) means a person who, at a given time, holds — or has held within a prescribed period before that time — the office or position of head of an international organization that is established by the governments of states or the head of an institution of any such organization.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions about these changes, the changes coming into force in June of this year, or AML compliance in general, please contact us.

FINTRAC’s 2016 Real Estate Brief

Quick Overview

A little over a month ago, FINTRAC published an operational brief for the Canadian real estate industry.  The brief was intended to assist reporting entities in meeting the obligations to report suspicious transactions or attempted suspicious transactions that related to potential money laundering or terrorist financing.  The publication provided some common indicators that may be present in a transaction that suggest money laundering or terrorist financing could be involved.

What Does it Mean?

The suspicious indicators provided by FINTRAC list circumstances or activities that might signal potentially illicit activity.  This does not mean that if one or more of the indicators are present that the transaction is definitely suspicious and must be reported to FINTRAC, it is meant to ensure that you are aware of the potential that suspicious activity may be taking place.  In that context, if you are involved in real estate transactions, you must be aware of the indicators in the brief.  If you do encounter a transaction that may be considered suspicious, you will need to collect additional information that will aid in your decision to report it or document why it was not considered suspicious.

What Now?

In order to ensure familiarity for anyone who interacts with customers and their transactions, the list of FINTRAC’s indicators should be included in your ongoing AML compliance training program.  Furthermore, the indicators should also be included in your procedure manuals, allowing easy access to the information.  Finally, the indicators should be incorporated into your Risk Assessment documentation.  Specifically, when determining customer risk and the controls used to effectively mitigate potential risks.

We’ve made it easier for you to integrate this content into your program by putting the indicators in a Word document for you.

Need a Hand?

Outlier has taken the list of indicators provided by FINTRAC and formatted them into an easy to use Microsoft Word document, which can be downloaded here: FINTRAC Indicators Specific to Real Estate Transactions.  This should allow companies within the real estate sector to easily update their documentation and ensure they are sufficiently monitoring for potentially suspicious activity.  If you aren’t sure what to do with this information and would like some assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Would You Recognize Real Estate Red Flags?

Rodney_FINTRACOn November 14th, 2016 FINTRAC released a brief for all reporting entities who may be involved in real estate transactions.  The briefing is intended as guidance to provide some examples of indicators that may be present in transactions that may suggest they are linked to money laundering or terrorist financing.  The indicators described have been taken from transactions suspected of being related to money laundering or terrorist financing reported internationally.  The briefing focuses on the potential risks and vulnerabilities within the real estate industry and provides suggestions on how to ensure reporting entities are sufficiently meeting suspicious transaction reporting obligations.

The briefing is meant to provide operational guidance given the small overall number of suspicious transactions that have been reported to FINTRAC by the Real Estate industry.  The briefing states that these indicators will be used by FINTRAC to assess compliance with your reporting obligations.  If you are a reporting entity that interacts with the real estate industry in one form or another, the indicators and scenarios outlined in this brief should be considered when updating your Risk Assessment and training materials.

To put things into perspective, though the actual size of the real estate market is difficult to determine precisely, CMHC has produced some statistics.  CMHC suggests that between 2003 and 2013 over $9 trillion of mortgage credits were negotiated and roughly 5 million sales took place through Multiple Listing Services (MLS).  In contrast, FINTRAC received only 127 Suspicious Transactions Reports (STRs) from real estate brokers, agents and developers and 152 by other types of reporting entities, such as banks and trust/loan companies.  To go a step further, in FINTRAC’s 2015 Annual Report, between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015, a total of 92,531 STRs were filed across all reporting entities.

 

re-strs-filed-vs-sales

This evidence supports FINTRAC’s assertion that operational guidance for the real estate industry is needed.

The indicators and examples covered in the brief outline numerous scenarios that may suggest that a transaction is related to a money laundering or terrorist financing offense.  It also speaks to how the appearance of legitimacy obfuscates the clarity of suspicious transactions and requires more than a just “gut feel”.  What is required is the consideration of the facts related to the transaction and their context.  Does the transaction with all the known factors, positive or negative, make sense?

 

What This Means to Your Business? 

First off, FINTRAC will be using the indicators provided to assess your compliance with reporting obligations.  This has a couple different applications.  The first being, does your AML compliance program documentation make reference to the suspicious indicators that are provided.  Basically, are staff aware of the elements that may be present in a transaction that would suggest money laundering or terrorist financing may be occurring?

Secondly, is there an oversight process to ensure if there are transactions that contain one or more of these indicators where an STR was not submitted, is reviewed?  If so, does the process ensure supporting evidence that the Compliance Officer reviewed the transaction and determined there were not reasonable grounds to suspect its relation to money laundering or terrorist financing?  When you encounter a transaction involving any of the indicators provided, it is very important that you collect as much information as possible to assist the Compliance Officer with their determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction, or attempted transaction, may be related to money laundering or terrorist financing.  Alternatively, even if none of the indicators provided by FINTRAC are present but we still feel there is “something off” about our customer’s transaction, speak with your Compliance Officer.  They will be able to provide some insight on additional information that may assist our decision.  Once you have collected any additional information you may still not feel comfortable, but this does not mean you cannot complete the transaction, but that you must be sure your Compliance Officer is provided with all the information, which includes our reason for the escalation, so that they can decide whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect it may be related to a money laundering or terrorist financing offense.  The Compliance Officer will document their decision and, if necessary, submit an STR to FINTRAC.

Need a Hand?

If you are a reporting entity that interacts with the real estate industry and would like assistance updating your AML compliance program documentation or simply have some questions, please contact us.

Sanctions This Week: July 25th – 29th, 2016

 

OSFISanctions Pic

There were no updates released from OSFI this week.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released four updates last week.  One update was related to the publication of Cuba-related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), covering some of the recent changes made to the sanctions that had previously been placed on Cuba.  Other updates included the removal of 12 individuals from the Counter Terrorism Designations List, the issuance of a Finding of Violation and the publication of Iran General License J.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.

The update to the Cuba-related FAQs was for the issuance of a new FAQ (#38) and a revision of an existing FAQ (#39), relating to certain information collection and recordkeeping requirements for persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction who provide authorized carrier or travel services to or from Cuba for specifically licensed travelers.

The update to the Counter Terrorism Designations List included the removal of 12 individuals of Libyan origin who are currently residing in the UK.

The Finding of Violation was issued to Compass Bank, which uses the trade name BBVA Compass, for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations. From June 12, 2013 to June 3, 2014, Compass maintained accounts on behalf of two individuals on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the “SDN List”).

The final update of the week was related to OFAC issuing “General License J”, authorizing the re-exportation of certain civil aircraft to Iran on temporary sojourn and related transactions.

See the Cuba-related FAQ update on OFAC’s website.

See the Counter Terrorism Designations List update on OFAC’s website.

See the issuance of a Finding of Violation to Compass Bank on OFAC’s website.

See the Iran General License J details on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s recent actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Redlined PCMLTFR Updates (June 2016)

Amber with laptop logo on screen 2On June 29, 2016 updates to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) & Terrorist Financing Regulations (PCMLTFR) were published in the Canada Gazette. The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) has also published updated guidance related to identification, and we expect more updated guidance in the coming weeks.

In order to make it easier for our friends, colleagues and customers to understand the changes, we have created a “redlined” version of the document that can be downloaded and used free of charge.

Our only stipulation for those that choose to use this document in any way is that we do not permit a fee to be charged for access to it, in whole or in part, via any medium… That’s a fancy way of saying that you can share it as much as you like, but you can’t charge money for it.

That said, we hope that this document saves you time and money – it’s the least we can do:

June 29 2016 PCMLTFR Updates Redlined

Need A Hand?

Changes will not come into effect until next year (2017). If you need assistance updating your anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program, please contact us.

 

Sanctions This Week: June 27th – July 1st, 2016

Sanctions Pic

OSFI

On June 27th, 2016, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released two updates to the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC’s) Al-Qaida and Taliban regulations sanctions list, amending 8 individuals and 1 entity.

The individuals are subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo set out in paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 2253 (2015) adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

All of the individuals are of different nationalities, but all have connections to Al-Qaida and French terrorist groups.  Some of the individuals have been detained and are currently serving out sentences.  Where others have arrest warrants issued by France, which are currently outstanding.

Go to the OSFI UNAQTR update on the OSFI page.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released three updates last week.  One update was related to the Counter Terrorist Designations list.  The second update was the publication of new Panama-related and Kingpin Act General Licenses and related Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). The FAQ update is related to recent adjustments made to the sanctions placed on Panama.

OFAC also released the details about the implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, where penalties related to AML failings have increased 150%, the allowable maximum.  The adjustment to the base fine of USD 11,000, has now increased to USD 27,500.  This is based off the Consumer Price Index, and if you are curious about the actual math, see the image below:

OFAC CMP Calculation

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.  The changes to the Counter Terrorism Designations list included the removal of 11 Somali and Djibouti nationals.  The update also included the addition of one individual of Indian nationality with ties to the entity added, which is a section of Al-Qaida operating within India.

See the Counter Terrorism Designations List update on OFAC’s website.

See the Kingpin Act/Panama-related General Licenses and FAQs update on OFAC’s website.

See the Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act update on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s Recent Actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Sanctions This Week: June 20th – 26th, 2016

 

OSFIOutlier3_032

On June 20th, 2016, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC’s) Al-Qaida and Taliban Regulations (UNAQTR) update to the sanctions list, removing one individual.

The assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo, set out in paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 2253 (2015), no longer apply to the individual.  The review pursuant to Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) was concluded on July 30th, 2009, which is almost seven years ago.  For further information about the process for removing individuals and entities from the UNAQTR List, pursuant to a decision by the UN Security Council Committee, may be found in the “Press Releases” section on the Committee’s website.

Go to OSFI’s release of the UNAQTR update on the OSFI page.

Go to the United Nations Security Council Committee’s page on “Delisting”.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released two updates last week.  One update involved the agreement to to settle potential civil liability for apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations.  The second update was the addition of a single individual to the Democratic Republic of the Congo Designations list.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.

The OFAC penalty settlement amount for violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations was $107,691.30 USD.  The stated violations are as follows:

  • On or about April 15, 2011, the company appeared to have violated the Regulations when it exported 3,600 medical products to its United Arab Emirates distributor with knowledge, or reason to know, that the goods were ultimately destined for Iran; and
  • Additionally, on or about May 27, 2011, the company exported an additional 400 units of the same product to its United Arab Emirates distributor with knowledge, or reason to know, that the goods were ultimately destined for Iran.

OFAC determined that the company voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations, and that the company constitutes a non-egregious case. The statutory maximum civil monetary penalty amount for the apparent violations was $1,129,912 USD and the base civil monetary penalty was $159,542.  The settlement amount reflects OFAC’s consideration of the following factors:

  • The company acted willfully by exporting products to its foreign distributor with knowledge, or reason to know, that the exports were ultimately destined for Iran in apparent violation of U.S. law, editing its destination control statement at the request of its distributor, and continuing to conduct business with its distributor after receiving confirmation that the distributor had re-exported the products to Iran;
  • The company’s former CEO and former International Sales Manager knew that the exports were ultimately destined for Iran; and
  • The company did not have a sanctions compliance program in place at the time of the apparent violations.

The company took remedial steps, including the implementation of an OFAC compliance program; and cooperated with OFAC’s investigation and agreed to toll the statute of limitations for a total of 513 days.

See the Enforcement Action Report on OFAC’s website.

See the Democratic Republic of the Congo updates on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s recent actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Sanctions This Week: June 6th – 12th, 2016

OSFISanctions Pic

There were no updates released from OSFI this week.

Go to the OSFI lists page.

OFAC

The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Branch, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), released two updates to five sanction lists last week.  The updates, include the following:

  • Release of the 2015 Terrorist Assets Report;
  • Iran-related FAQ;
  • Counter Terrorism Designation;
  • Termination of the OFAC Fax-on-Demand Service; and
  • Kingpin Act/Honduras and Kingpin Act/Panama-related General Licenses and FAQ.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.  The sanctions target countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.

The 2015 Terrorist Assets Report is theTwenty-fourth Annual Report to the Congress on Assets in the United States Relating to Terrorist Countries and International Terrorism Program Designees.  This report cites a number of sanctions-related authorities including executive orders.  All of the legal materials cited in this report may be found in the legal section of OFAC’s website.

The Iran-related FAQ was adding two FAQs related to Financial and Banking Measures  and nine FAQs related to Foreign Entities Owned or Controlled by U.S. Persons.  OFAC added these FAQs to provide further clarity on the scope of the sanctions lifting that occurred on Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The Counter Terrorism Designation list update was related to a single entity, Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade, who are known to be operating in Syria.

The termination of the OFAC Fax-on-Demand services was due to a lack of user demand for the service which is effective Friday, June 10, 2016.  General information pertaining to sanctions programs will remain publicly available on OFAC’s website.

The recently published update and FAQ to the Kingpin Act General Licenses, included four new General Licenses related to:

  • General License 1B – Authorizing certain transactions and activities to liquidate and wind down Banco Continental, S.A.;
  • General License 4B – Authorizing certain transactions involving individuals or entities located in the Panamanian Mall and associated complex, Soho Panama, S.A. (a.k.a. Soho Mall Panama);
  • General License 5A – Authorizing certain transactions and activities related to the Panamanian seizure of Balboa Bank & Trust; and
  • General License 6A – Authorizing certain transactions and activities related to the Panamanian intervention in Balboa Securities, Corp.

These General Licenses authorize certain transactions and activities that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to the Kingpin Act.  OFAC also amended four FAQs related to the above licenses.

See the 2015 Terrorist Assets Report on OFAC’s website.

See the Iran-related FAQ updates on OFAC’s website.

See the Counter Terrorism Designations list update on OFAC’s website.

See the termination of OFAC’s Fax-on-Demand service information on OFAC’s website.

See the Kingpin Act/Honduras and Kingpin Act/Panama-related General Licenses and FAQs update on OFAC’s website.

See OFAC’s recent actions page.

Need A Hand?

We would love to hear from you.  If there are subjects in this post that you would like to know more about, or if you need assistance with your compliance program, please contact us.

Return to Blog Listing