by Admin | Anti-money laundering
The European Commission’s fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive entered into force on 9 July 2018 and Member States have until 10 January 2020 to transpose the majority of its provisions. Its main aim is to establish a centralised public register of companies and their ultimate beneficial owners, thereby reducing the number of shell companies. It was an important step forward in combating money laundering by criminal enterprises.
The UK government has confirmed it will implement this latest Anti-Money Laundering Directive before it leaves the EU. It said that it will transpose the new rules into law as the deadline for adoption, January 2020, falls within the post-Brexit implementation period that was agreed in principle between UK and EU towards the end of 2019; however, that agreement has been rejected by the UK parliament. What now happens when the United Kingdom departs from the European Union is therefore a serious concern.
The UK has in fact put its own legislation in place (in May 2018) to be able to deal post-Brexit with both sanctions and money-laundering under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (“SAMLA 2018”). The main provisions of SAMLA 2018 will come into force in 2019. The purpose of SAMLA 2018 is to ensure that once the UK has left the EU that it can continue to impose, update and lift sanctions provided for by the United Nations (“UN”) and pursuant to other international obligations, and effectively detect and prevent money-laundering and terrorist financing by implementing internationally recognised standards. Under this regime the UK has already adopted its own particular approach in some respects e.g. sanctions (in the form of an asset freeze) may be adopted on individuals by description rather than by specific name.
Some commentators have warned that by stepping outside European regulatory and policing arrangements, Britain is at risk of becoming Europe’s money laundering capital. Money launderers often seek out areas where there is a low detection risk due to weak or ineffective AML policies and a breakdown in international cooperation. A disorderly exit from the European Union could therefore provide the perfect opportunity for money launderers to take advantage of potential loopholes and uncertainty.
For example, at present, the UK is a member of Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency. Europol has a remit to tackle European-wide serious and organised crime threats, and much of its work involves anti-money laundering efforts. In addition to providing an arena in which joint action can be organised, Europol also maintains a Europe-wide criminal information and intelligence database, the Europol Information System (EIS). The EIS collates the national databases of all twenty-four-member states, making them searchable by all Europol members. If, for example an investigation was being conducted into British nationals in France, the French police would be able to check whether they had been connected to crime which had taken place elsewhere on the continent.
Each year, the UK uses this database for around 250,000 searches relating to terrorism and crime investigations. If the UK, like Canada or Norway, were accepted as a third-country member, Britain would no longer have full access to the data, could no longer run operations from Europol, and would have less influence. It would be possible to have a special agreement, such as the EU negotiated with the United States, to give the United States greater access to data, but it is unclear how long this would take.
There is perhaps an upside. It is likely that the EU could engage in such a flexible special solution while pursuing security areas where the UK has resisted greater European integration. But in the meantime this loss of shared intelligence will greatly hinder the ability to combat illicit flows, as British officials will be unable to “follow the money trail” once it has left their locality.
Last year the EU together with the European Banking Authority (EBA) announced measures to combat white collar crime, which will ensure that Europe’s banking supervisor is the ultimate meditator when it comes to money laundering. The EBA has been given the authority not only to address problems at banks but also to perform risk assessments and further develop AML standards.
What this means for UK and European banks
In December, the EBA issued a warning to European banks that they must step up their efforts to mitigate the risks of a disorderly Brexit. The EBA warning reflected the real risks that will arise if the UK finds itself excluded from policy-making on money laundering and white-collar crime in general. As things currently stand efforts depend greatly upon cooperation and collaborative international treaties which the UK may be forced to leave. The UK will have to align its own anti-money laundering standards with those set by global leaders, such as the United Stated or the EU. The UK’s proximity to the EU and its existing financial relationships suggests that the UK may have to adopt EU standards, as European-wide compliance will be necessary for post-Brexit interaction. However, like most other EU-related matters, the UK will no longer be in a position to influence them, so its ability to combat money laundering could be curtailed. Criminals are likely, for example, to exploit the redesigned customs setup that follows Brexit.
With the UK eliminated from existing agreements and the customs union, British and European banks will be more reliant on working cooperatively at the international level and investing in their own know-your-customer (KYC) technology if they want to remain on top of the challenge. A lot have already been planning for the worst-case scenario, but this is not such an easy call for smaller banks.
For many international banks, customers may need to be transferred to the EU. The need to on-board many customers creates an opportunity for unsafe accounts to slip through the net and gain legitimacy, or alternatively if the process is delayed, this could result in bottlenecks and backlogs that lead in turn to significant losses in revenues and market share. This will not be a “one-off” event but may endure over some period of time as the implications of Brexit unfold fully. Less well-resourced financial services entities would be wise to investigate cost-effective technology (e.g. cloud-based) solutions and put processes in place to avoid the worst from happening.
Go to the AML Knowledge Centre LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8196279/ to read more articles on AML and financial crime. Also, we look forward to your input!
Picture:
lazyllama – Shutterstock
by Admin | Anti-money laundering
Transparency campaigners dismayed at clean bill of health for UK government
On Friday, 7 December the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a G7 initiative to combat money laundering and terrorist financing awarded the UK the highest rating it has ever given. The move was greeted with stark disbelief by anti-corruption and transparency campaigners such as Global Witness, Transparency International and Corruption Watch. They have a point. Many would echo their view that while the UK has taken a number of initiatives to combat money laundering in recent years, the flow of dirty money continues unabated.
A Global Witness campaigner stated, “Hundreds of billions of dirty pounds are washing through our banks and property market every year, as the government openly admits. Giving it so much credit before we’ve seen real change makes a mockery of the whole process.” Transparency International has often expressed the view that the FATF approach is fundamentally flawed. It is all too cosy. According to its January 2017 position paper: “Policy discussions within the confines of a largely closed, expert-driven anti-money laundering (AML) space have not generated sufficiently effective AML policies. No country is yet compliant with the international FATF standards.” The paper calls for greater openness and the involvement of civil society. Let us, however, add some context. As FATF rightly stated in announcing its report, the UK is the largest financial services provider in the world and, as a result of the exceptionally large volume of funds flowing through its financial sector, the country also faces a significant risk that some of these funds have links to crime and terrorism.
The FATF report emphasizes that the UK government has a strong understanding of these risks and has implemented a raft of policies, strategies and proactive initiatives to address them. It states that the UK aggressively pursues money laundering and terrorist financing investigations and prosecutions, achieving 1400 convictions each year for money laundering. And it adds that the UK’s overall anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime is effective in many respects. Nevertheless, when it comes to the shortcomings, FATF’s criticisms of UK efforts are ultra-cautious. It says that “the intensity of supervision is not consistent across all [financial and non-financial] sectors and UK needs to ensure that supervision of all entities is fully in line with the significant risks the UK faces.” It adds that the UK “needs to address certain areas of weakness, such as supervision and the reporting and investigation of suspicious transactions. However, the country has demonstrated a robust level of understanding of its risks, a range of proactive measures and initiatives to counter the significant risks identified and plays a leading role in promoting global effective implementation of AML/CFT measures”
The Global Laundromat
So where are we to find the truth between these extremes? We believe that there is truth in both positions, but neither the optimism (some would say complacency) of FATF nor the “demands” for “tougher action” of the campaigners can offer a comprehensive answer. It is true that the United Kingdom has had some spectacular successes in recent months. An example was the clampdown on Scottish Limited Partnerships (SLPs).
According to the Wall Street Journal, these “are used by thousands of legitimate businesses, including the private-equity and pension industries, bringing more than £30 billion ($38 billion) a year in investment to the UK”. However, SLPs have also been an important conduit for dirty money and especially Russian dirty money, including $20 billion in a scandal known as the Global Laundromat. The UK responded with new laws in 2017 to make their ownership more transparent and claims that this has led to an 80% drop in the number of new registrants. In July of this year, the UK also laid out a broader set of proposals requiring foreign companies and other legal entities owning UK real estate to reveal the true beneficial owners.
But these measures received a lukewarm welcome by Global Witness and other campaigners who pointed to the lack of prosecutions, demanding that the authorities make better use of the information it receives from both financial institutions and non-financial institutions (e.g. legal practices).
Technology must be better employed
Sifting through information to identify the ultimate beneficial owners behind ghost companies is no easy matter. In the 2014 KPMG Global AML Survey, respondents stated that “identifying complex ownership structures is the most challenging area in the implementation of a risk-based approach to KYC collection”. Part of the problem is that thousands of offshore operations and others with a complex ownership structure are perfectly legitimate, so how does a bank or a lawyer identify those that are being used for fraudulent financial transactions, without scaring away business? They need to be extremely careful to distinguish between what’s legit and what isn’t. Many businesses use sophisticated legal structures for valid reasons such as asset protection, estate planning, privacy and confidentiality.
Technology has become essential to help financial institutions and their legal partners to better understand and document ultimate beneficial owners, identify suspect activities and decide the appropriate level of due diligence required. Basically, the whole industry is banking (no pun intended) on big data, machine learning (ML), and artificial intelligence (AI) to help simplify complex processes and automate repetitive tasks. Even though, these buzzwords have become a hot topic many don’t even know the difference between the two and use the terms interchangeably. ML refers to a computer system that has the ability to learn how to do specific tasks, in contrast, AI enables computer systems to perform tasks done by humans. While AI can replace some rudimentary tasks, I wouldn’t say that compliance analysts are one of them. Therefore, by applying these technologies, the compliance staff would have more time to deal with non-routine events and complex cases as well as having better information through a cleaner, more traceable process to make objective decisions.
Of course, machine learning models can process tremendous amounts of data, but ML systems still need to learn the difference between a false positive and a false negative and that in real-time. First, there simply isn’t enough well-structured data available at most financial institutions that can be used for teaching these ML / AI models. IBM’s Watson, named after a Sherlock Holmes character, has learned this hard way. As with every new technology wave CRM, Business Intelligence, and Predictive analytics, etc. tech companies can’t wait to sprinkle these terms on every bit of their software like fairy dust. Of course, consulting firms are the biggest advocates who can’t wait to implement such solutions!
As of June 2017, the Watson AI platform had been trained on six types of cancers which took years and thousands of medical doctors.
Second, bad actors are always adjusting and trying new schemas and third, the financial services landscape is continually changing leaving ML and AI platforms with a real-time knowledge gap. However, appealing this technology might sound to the people watching the bottom-line. The reality is that ML / AI platforms require months and in many cases years of laborious training, as experts must feed vast quantities of well-structured data into the platform for it to be able to draw meaningful conclusions and those conclusions are only based upon the data that it has been trained on.
- Learning transaction behaviour of similar customers
- Pinpointing customers with similar transactions behaviour
- Discovering transaction activity of customers with similar traits (business type, geographic location, age, etc.)
- Identifying outlier transactions and outlier customers
- Learning money laundering, fraud, and terrorist financing typologies and identify typology specific risks
- Dynamically learning correlations between alerts which produced verified suspicious activity reports and those that generate false positives
- Continuously analyzing false-positive alerts and learn common predictors
For the most part, financial crime will be driven by advances in technology and this marriage of regulation and technology is not new, in itself. However, with the continual increase in regulatory expectations, the staggering levels of cyber-attacks against financial institutions and the FinTech disruption makes RegTech the perfect partner.
In brief, RegTechs address many gaps in today’s financial crime program by improving automation in the detection of suspicious activity, which would be a significant move from monitoring to preventing financial crime while being more cost-effective and agile!
However, financial institutions have been done this path before putting their faith in technology but this time they would be wise to thoroughly start with small-scale pilot projects. Financial institutions need to invest in data quality as it is a key component of any successful financial crime program. High-quality data leads to better analytics and insights that are so important to accurately teaching ML and AI models but also drive better decisions. Therefore, transparency campaigners would do well to campaign for the adoption of such technological solutions. These will provide the infrastructure needed to meet their demands and enable the change they seek.
Written by
Go to the AML Knowledge Centre LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8196279/ to read more articles on AML and financial crime. Also, we look forward to your input!
“Top Misconceptions of Cryptocurrency as a Payment System”
by Admin | Anti-money laundering
Preparing for the European Union Sixth Money Laundering Directive
Anti-money laundering (AML) law is constantly evolving. And necessarily so, given the increasingly sophisticated methods and technologies that criminals and terrorists use to move illegally earned funds through their networks. In the European Union, companies currently have until 10 January 2020 to comply with the current directive on money laundering (5MLD). And the European Parliament already approved, on 12 September 2018, a proposal for the EU’s next round of AML legislation, known as the sixth anti-money laundering directive (6 MLD) – just six months after the formal adoption of the fifth.
This is especially important because 6MLD represents a significant broadening of the scope of AML. One thing that is already abundantly clear is that it will not only affect companies based in Europe but also companies that have clients or subsidiaries in Europe. Thus, for example, there should be no talk of “Brexit uncertainty”. While the United Kingdom may not be directly bound by 6 MLD, and it is unclear as to whether it will adopt equivalent legislation for domestic purposes, British companies doing business in the EU will certainly need to comply.
So, what are the main points of 6 MLD?
A broader definition of predicate crimes
First, it offers a much tighter definition of what constitutes a money laundering crime, referred to in 6 MLD as “predicate crimes”. The aim here is that “the definition of criminal activities which constitute predicate offences for money laundering should be sufficiently uniform in all Member States”. The directive explicitly lists 22 categories of criminal activity. Member states must introduce national legislation to pursue and punish such activity if they have not already done so. Whereas most of these 22 categories, such as racketeering, drug and human trafficking, are obvious and well-established money laundering crimes, some of the newer predicate crimes are rather more nuanced. For example, legislators and corporate counsels will need to study a body of existing EU legislation to find out what 6MLD means in terms of “environmental crimes”, while other predicate offences, in particular cybercrime, tax crimes, and cryptocurrency present ever-moving targets.
Having digested the scope of these predicate crimes, firms will then have to conduct an impact analysis of the risk factors presented to their business models and the measures and controls they will need to introduce to ensure compliance. The enlarged scope of the directive means every company will need to seek advice and adapt accordingly.
6 MLD will also harmonise the penalties for anyone found guilty of money laundering offences within EU Member States, with a maximum of four years’ imprisonment. Currently, the severity of punishments for such crimes varies considerably.
Extension of liability
Until now EU law has focused the application of corporate liability to companies operating in regulated sectors, such as banking. Under Article 7 of 6 MLD, any company or legal person operating in an EU Member State can now be held criminally liable for failing to prevent money laundering – so this is also a significant extension of the scope of AML legislation. In concrete terms this means that company executives who are either aware of criminal activity, or who do not provide appropriate supervision or control over employees who enable money laundering, will be held liable and can be prosecuted.
Enhanced international cooperation
The new directive reiterates the EU’s commitment to combating money laundering by “enabling more efficient and swifter cross-border co-operation between competent authorities”. This commitment extends beyond EU and the European Economic Area. Essentially, local jurisdictions will be obliged to share information if there is a possibility to prosecute offences in more than one Member State.
The directive also explicitly addresses the fact that criminal activity may take place in one jurisdiction while the money laundering takes place another, the so-called principle of “dual criminality”. As the preamble to the directive states, “Given the mobility of perpetrators and proceeds stemming from criminal activities, as well as the complex cross-border investigations required to combat money laundering, all Member States should establish their jurisdiction in order to enable the competent authorities to investigate and prosecute such activities. Member States should thereby ensure that their jurisdiction includes situations where an offence is committed by means of information and communication technology from their territory, whether such technology is based on their territory or not.”
Article 10 of 6 MLD specifically addresses this issue. In particular, it is likely to make a material difference in relation to the reporting and prosecution of new predicate crimes such as the facilitation of foreign tax evasion.
Domestic law may be tougher
While 6 MLD aims to harmonise legislation across Europe and to enhance international cooperation, it is worth noting that some jurisdictions already have tougher legislation in place in some areas. The United Kingdom’s most recent overhaul of its domestic AML legislation was the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, which came into force in June 2017. This implemented the EU’s fourth money laundering directive and imposes a maximum term of 14 years’ imprisonment in England and Wales for the principle money laundering offences, significantly stricter than the maximum four-year sentence proposed by the 6MLD.
Post-Brexit the UK will need to decide whether to adopt the broader list of predicate crimes and adopt the provisions of 6 MLD or amend existing legislation. But even if it does not, it is already clear that companies doing business elsewhere in Europe will need to review their risk position and AML processes. As far as AML is concerned, there will be no bonfire of the regulations!
There is no silver bullet
Smaller financial institutions will find it difficult to keep up with yet another regulatory round in AML. They will come under a lot of pressure to invest in new “future-proof” technologies and hear a lot of buzzwords. There is no shortage of RegTech companies out there, most of which have sprung up in recent years, who are keen to give you their sales pitch. Deloitte lists more than 60 companies specializing in the KYC and AML space alone.
The truth is, however, that there is no absolute failsafe solution and no silver bullet. Larger financial institutions that have invested billions in highly sophisticated artificial intelligence and machine learning solutions for AML compliance now find that real work has only started.
To minimize the risks of non-compliance while keeping costs under control, companies would do better to review and strengthen their AML processes, especially around know your customer, before committing to any major technology investments. I set out some of the most important considerations in this earlier post. However, each organization is different, and it is important to find the best technology fit. Therefore, I recommend seeking independent advice on how best to invest in improving data quality and automating the most time-consuming parts of your AML workflow before purchasing technology for the sake of technology.
Author: Paul Hamilton
Go to the AML Knowledge Centre LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8196279/ to read more articles on AML and financial crime. Also, we look forward to your input!
“Top Misconceptions of Cryptocurrency as a Payment System”
Which can be read on Amazon Kindle Unlimited for Free You can find more interesting articles by visiting us on one of the following platforms: AML Knowledge Centre (LinkedIn) or Anti-Bribery and Compliance at the Front-Lines (LinkedIn)
Picture:
H_Ko – Shutterstock
by Admin | Anti-money laundering
Basel Institute reveals slow progress in AML
Earlier this month the Basel Institute on Governance announced the release of the Basel Centre for Asset Recovery’s Basel Anti-Money Laundering Index for 2018 – the so-called “AML Index”. It is the seventh such report assessing countries’ risk exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing. A free public version of the report can be found here while a more detailed expert edition, covering virtually every country in the world, is available at cost. It makes grim reading.
The report states that “public transparency is showing signs of decline, with governments making less information available about how they manage public funds.” The key trend is a lack of measurable progress. In fact, the report finds that “42% of countries have worsened their risk scores between 2017 and 2018. Almost 37% of countries now have a worse risk score than they did in 2012”.
Though some countries are clearly much less risky than others, the report shows that we should take nothing for granted. Countries that were once considered very safe, but which have been put under the spotlight of the new FATF methodology, look somewhat riskier. “The recent Danske Bank scandal seems to confirm the observation that there are big issues with the effectiveness of money laundering supervision in countries generally regarded as low-risk”, according to the report.
A key development is that the FATF methodology not only measures technical compliance but also implementation effectiveness, and the report warns governments and regulatory bodies against hiding behind formal compliance structures and taking a “tick-the-box” approach to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) frameworks. The report authors rely heavily on the FATF methodology together with the Financial Secrecy Index and the US State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR).
The report warns that there is no country on the planet that can be regarded as zero risk, and highlights points that we have frequently raised here at the AML Knowledge Centre:
“… many low-risk countries have issues that need to be addressed, for example, related to beneficial ownership or politically exposed persons. What’s more, criminals are ingenious at finding new ways to launder money, and governments need to be constantly on the lookout and adjust their legal, institutional and policy responses accordingly.
“In other words, a low-risk score in the Basel AML Index is not a ticket to taking a leave from AML/CFT vigilance, either for a country’s administration or for companies and financial institutions doing business in that country.”
AML Compliance – meeting the challenge
While the AML Index’s methodology is open to criticism (and has been criticized) we think it is right to put the main emphasis on the quality and effectiveness of the AML/CFT framework. However, it is difficult to legislate for best practice in commercial organizations. Our view is that far too many organisations are reliant on business intelligence systems that may support technical compliance but are often ineffective, or weak, in meeting the challenge in any meaningful way. Typically, BI was developed to enable segmentation for mass marketing purposes. However, just because a person or a legal identity entity falls into a high-risk segment, this does not make him or it a money launderer. And declining to take an honest person’s business is not good for your reputation.
So how have financial institutions calibrated their AML programs to balance risk and reputation? Many larger firms have invested in offshore AML entities to check through millions of alerts, the vast majority of which are false positives. A by-product of traditional AML transaction monitoring systems. And with so many false positives, false negatives are bound to slip through.
Moreover, newer technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning are spreading optimism throughout their industry. However, these technologies are only as good as the data that is used to train these systems, whereas criminals are constantly inventing new ways of cheating the system, as the AML Index report emphasizes. All of this can impose an intolerable cost burden even for larger companies, let alone small banks and financial institutions. Therefore, strengthening your first line of defence, i.e. tighten up your Know Your Customer processes, is no longer an option but a necessity. This may or may not involve investment in a specific technology solution, but the essential aim is to implement procedures robust enough to identify bad actors at the onboarding stage, rather than relying on AML transaction monitoring systems to identify them when it is already too late.
“Top Misconceptions of Cryptocurrency as a Payment System”
Which can be read on Amazon Kindle Unlimited for Free You can find more interesting articles by visiting us on one of the following platforms: AML Knowledge Centre (LinkedIn) or Anti-Bribery and Compliance at the Front-Lines (LinkedIn)
by Admin | Anti-money laundering
Money laundering in Russia has its own characteristics. In the normal world money laundering is the transformation of “illicit money” into “clean money”: criminals selling drugs to invest in real estate, in Russia it is different. There money laundering mostly means turning “clean money” into “illicit money”, for example, by evading taxes or using illegal schemes to withdraw money from the country that could be both illicit and clean. Сompanies trying to transfer legal money abroad because investing in Russia is too dangerous: high political risks, weak legal infrastructure, criminalization and corruption of the economy. To withdraw money from the country companies need an approval from the Central Bank and an economic purpose like a financial or commercial transaction. Along with the money earned in Russia by legal means, there are also sources of illegally earned money:
Where the illegal money comes from?
Sources of legal funds in Russia can be divided into 4 major categories:
- Illegal sale of natural resources: oil, natural gas, metals, etc .;
- Smuggling of alcohol, tobacco, weapons, and drugs;
- Income derived from such “classic” types of illegal activities, like extortion (racketeering), prostitution, theft, fraud, theft of cars, etc .;
- Offenses “of white-collar workers”: the plunder of state property and funds, false declarations of income and profits, tax evasion, illegal “flight” of capital.
GAFI experts note that foreign sources of illegal funds entering Russia and the countries of the former USSR for laundering are little known.
How does the money laundering work in Russia?
The most common method of money laundering in Russia is the opening of individual accounts at financial institutions, placing there significant amounts in cash and then transferring them to the accounts of fake companies, which in turn transfer them to another location.
Other methods include the use of counterfeit accounts, double bookkeeping and contract fraud. A typical scenario involves the transfer of funds in foreign currency to the account of a fake company overseas, allegedly for the purpose of financing a commercial transaction. A false contract for the purchase of goods from a shell company is submitted to the bank as evidence of the commercial need for transfer of funds. Once the money is transferred, legalized funds can be freely transferred to another account or converted into cash. This method is also used to steal public funds.
To launder proceeds from illegal activities in the region, banks, exchange offices, non-bank financial institutions, casinos and real estate companies are also used. Most of the laundering operations are carried out using cash or wire transfers, as well as bank and traveler’s checks.
Global Laundry allowed to launder more than $ 80 billion
According to documents received by the international organization of investigative journalists OCCRP, for three years from Russia was withdrawn at least $ 20 billion, but the real amount can be $ 80 billion. Journalists believe that about 500 people were involved in the corruption scheme named Global Laundry, including oligarchs, bankers and individuals.
Money laundering usually took place according to the following scheme: participants registered, for example, in the UK, two fake companies, the real owners of which were hiding behind a chain of off-shores. The authors of the investigation assume that both enterprises actually had the same owners. Then both companies signed a loan agreement, according to which company “A” lends a large sum from company “B”. In reality, the deal was fictitious, and no money was given to company “A”.
The contract stipulated that commercial structures from Russia would act as guarantors of repayment of the loan, which in almost all cases was headed by a Moldovan citizen. The company “A” then declared itself insolvent, and obligations to repay the debt automatically passed to Russian companies.
As the Moldovan citizen was at the head of Russian companies, the lawsuits had to be considered in the Moldovan court. Corrupt judges confirmed the existence of the debt and issued an order to recover from the guarantors the required amount. According to the investigation, more than 20 Moldovan judges were involved in the scheme. Some of them are under investigation now, and the others have resigned.
After the court decision, the bailiffs, who were also involved in the scheme, opened accounts with Moldindconbank in Moldova. To these accounts, Russian companies had to transfer money, thus closing a fictitious debt.
n the end, the money was transferred to the account of the “creditor company”, for the opening of which the Latvian bank Trasta Komercbanka was always selected. Thus, the money legalized by the Moldovan court was on the territory of the EU: swindlers could now dispose of the money at their discretion and transfer them to accounts in other countries.
Mafia capital and money laundering
Criminal groups continue to make significant investments in real estate, hotels, restaurants and other businesses in some countries of Western Europe. Funds for these purposes often come through intermediary offshore companies. The establishment of links between organized Russian and foreign criminal gangs is noted.
In Russia today there are objective economic conditions for the active legalization of criminal capital. Illicit drug trafficking, the trade in arms and radioactive materials, prostitution, underground gambling, organized crime, illegal financial and banking activities, the plundering of public funds and funds, license-free video business, illegal use of copyright and trademark rights, illegal production of alcohol are all more than favorable conditions for the emergence of significant by the standards of even Western states of illegal capital.
The presence of such money in the country is recognized by the international community as a sufficient condition for large-scale criminal financial operations.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that a huge part of the economic turnover in Russia is served by cash. According to some estimates, “cash” provides up to 60 per cent of the economic turnover (compared to 20 – in the US, or 40 – in Germany). Cash turnover significantly reduces the possibility of introducing effective reporting by financial and other institutions (casinos, salons for the sale of expensive cars, etc.) for transactions with a certain “ceiling”.
In addition to objective circumstances (the “shadow” economic foundation) is not enough to carry out large-scale laundering operations. It is necessary to have well-developed connections with the main financial centres of the world: London, New York, Tokyo, Zurich, Frankfurt am Main, etc.
The facts show: such links are established and expanded by Russian criminals. Active counter-movement of money began. Simplified departure from Russia – there was a legal possibility of investing money in the foreign real estate, securities, luxury goods. Such operations are carried out even during tourist trips to foreign financial centres and “tax havens”.
On the other hand, Russia is rapidly becoming the sphere of application of foreign criminal capital. For example, the Association of Russian Banks believes that over the past two years about 16 billion dollars of Mafia capital have migrated to Russia. The “dollarization” of the domestic economy is growing, and according to various estimates, there are 12 billion of US dollars circulating in Russia in 2018. The currency in the country has long been freely convertible in thousands of exchange offices.
More than 3 thousand criminal groups specialize in the legalization of criminal proceeds, almost 1.5 thousand of these groups formed their own legal economic organizations for this purpose. Up to 80% of the economic facilities of the non-state sector of the economy are under the control of criminal communities that charge them, including more than 500 banks, about 50 exchanges, almost the entire wholesale and retail trade network. According to expert estimates, 2/3 of the legalized funds received in this way are invested in the development of criminal entrepreneurship, 1/5 of it is spent on the acquisition of real estate.
A characteristic feature of money laundering technologies in Russia is the illegal cashing out of funds in order to conceal traces of origin and subsequent involvement in illegal or legal economic circulation.
Picture: Lyudmila2509 – Shutterstock
by Admin | Anti-money laundering
Cryptocurrencies are in their embryonic stage and individuals will exploit this period to profit from them for both good and bad. But, that doesn’t make cryptocurrencies any more an enabler of crime than does fiat and digital currencies. Lets us not forget, in 1995 when less than 1 per cent of the world’s population was online. The internet was nothing more than a curiosity and used by few for legitimate business. Today, the internet has grown into a useful tool for both businesses and private users.
For the most part, any serious exchange or wallet service will conduct a thorough Know Your Customer (KYC) on every new account as part of their onboarding process. That means linking personal identity to your wallet and to your bank account. Accordingly, a serious exchange or e-wallet will only transfer funds for a cash withdrawal to a connected bank account.
However, editorial stories like this one “Bitcoin Gains Value Due to Criminal Use [Only], writes a Forbes Columnist” has influenced us into believing that cryptocurrency is only used by organized crime and terrorist on the darknet. Because it provides them with complete anonymity.
Key findings of the 2017 UK’s national risk assessment (NRA) of money laundering and terrorist financing comes amidst the most significant period for the UK’s anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) regime for over a decade the assessment shows that:
- High-end money laundering and cash-based money laundering remain the greatest areas of money laundering risk to the UK. New typologies continue to emerge, including risks of money laundering through capital markets and increasing exploitation of technology, though these appear less prevalent than long-standing and well-known risks.
- The distinctions between typologies are becoming increasingly blurred. Law enforcement agencies see criminal funds progressing from lower level laundering before accumulating into larger sums to be sent overseas through more sophisticated methods, including retail banking and money transmission services.
Also, the semiannual risk survey published by the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) stated that these cryptocurrencies pose a higher risk!
The survey mentioned that criminals are persistent in their use of virtual currencies (umbrella term to include cryptocurrencies).
As well as the role virtual currencies have in funding these criminal activities by providing anonymity for cybercriminals, including terrorists and other groups seeking to transfer and launder money globally. Likewise, the federal agency that oversees national banks in the US also called virtual currencies an operational risk due to their perceived role in facilitating and enabling cybercrime.
Techniques used by criminals are constantly changing and will continue to evolve. Criminals will use whatever means are available to them, therefore it was only a matter of time until cryptocurrency would be adopted!
However, the anonymity promised by cryptocurrency is a contradiction in itself because their blockchain reveals an entire history of all transactions for the public to see including law enforcement!
At the moment, no other currency offers more anonymity and stability for money launderers, and terrorist than fiat currency…cash is still king for the time being.
What is your opinion? Please write us your comment.
“Top Misconceptions of Cryptocurrency as a Payment System”
Which can be read on Amazon Kindle Unlimited for Free You can find more interesting articles by visiting us on one of the following platforms: AML Knowledge Centre (LinkedIn) or Anti-Bribery and Compliance at the Front-Lines (LinkedIn)
Picture: Elnur – Shutterstock
