Viewing entries in
Compliance professionals are aware that substandard anti-money laundering (AML) processes and procedures and insufficient know-your-customer screening can open the floodgates for financial crime. Even with this knowledge, the high-profile scandal engulfing Denmark’s largest financial institution, Danske Bank, is a vivid reminder of the monumental scale of legal and reputational risks that arise from inattention to internal controls.
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) Criminal Division’s recently updated guidance for white-collar prosecutors — about evaluating corporate compliance programs — offers a roadmap for companies to pressure test whether their compliance policies meet defensible standards of care.
Beneficial ownership compliance is in flux. Even experienced legislation watchers and savvy compliance experts are confounded by erratic posturing and mixed messages emerging from global jurisdictions.
In the first update to its framework for assessing the money laundering risk of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) since 2008, the Wolfsberg Group urged financial institutions to focus resources on high-risk PEPs.
CEO Jim McWeeney describes the benefits of predictive risk analysis for addressing regulatory requirements in preparation for FinCEN’s new Customer Due Diligence Final Rule, scheduled to take effect in May 2018.
Early stage companies may be tempted to shortchange regulatory considerations. This can set the stage for compliance woes and reputation damage.
A brand protection program can be a viable option — if not a requirement — to countering the risks associated with the illicit trade in your company’s brands.
With the EU - US Privacy Shield a work in progress, EU enforcement for noncompliance with EU data protection standards has begun.