FIA U ANN U AL REPOR T 2011 - Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit

Generally, as explained earlier, the supervisory authority’s
regulatory cycle is followed and a decision is taken as early
as practically possible as to whether an FIAU inspector will
also be participating in the on-site examination. In the cases
where the AML/CFT on-site examination is carried out by a
supervisory authority as part of its broader prudential onsite
inspection, the part of the inspection that relates to
AML/CFT is carried out on behalf of the FIAU.
Procedurally, once the on-site compliance examinations are
completed, a report is drawn up by the FIAU, irrespective of
whether the compliance visit was undertaken by the FIAU
itself, the MFSA, the LGA or by either supervisory authority
jointly with the FIAU. In such report, the FIAU records the
findings of such visits, identifies possible shortcomings and
provides recommendations for subject persons to bring
their procedures in line with the PMLFTR. The reports are
then sent to the respective subject persons and a copy is
also forwarded to the relevant supervisory authority. In case
of joint inspections the report is signed by both authorities.
The subject person is required to implement corrective
measures within a time-period imposed by the FIAU and
to inform the FIAU of the measures undertaken to rectify
its position. Depending on the type of breaches identified,
the FIAU will then consider the imposition of an appropriate
sanction.
When a focused visit is carried out by the FIAU, the decision
to carry out such visit is normally based on information in the
possession of the FIAU which indicates some shortcomings
in the systems of the subject person which may require
closer examination by the FIAU.
In order to ensure that a consistent approach in compliance
monitoring is adopted by the supervisory authorities and
the FIAU following the introduction of the Implementing
30
Annual Report 2011
Procedures, the FIAU conducted an exercise to update the
compliance examination questionnaire utilised by the FIAU
and the supervisory authorities during the course of on-site
examinations.
Statistics
Chart 7 below shows the steady increase of the FIAU’s
participation in on-site examinations over the last 3 years.
Table 8 (page 31) outlines the on-site compliance examinations
carried out during the year under review and provides
a breakdown by subject person and by authority carrying out
the visits.
This table shows that a total of 33 on-site examinations
were carried out during 2011. Not only have the on-site
compliance examinations increased when compared to
previous years, but the visits have also covered a broader
segment of subject persons. The FIAU was involved in 20
visits during 2011, 2 of these visits being independent
focused AML/CFT visits to a corporate services provider
and to a trust and fiduciary company. The FIAU participated
in 18 visits carried out jointly with the MFSA, while a
further 13 visits were carried out by the MFSA on behalf of
the FIAU. The increased involvement of the FIAU in on-site
examinations is mainly attributable to the increase in staff
complement in the Compliance Section to three officers.
The envisaged further engagement of one additional officer
in 2012 should serve to further strengthen the capability of
the FIAU in this area.
Sanctions
Chart 7: Number of on-site AML/CFT examinations (2009 – 2011)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
During the year under review, the FIAU issued two written
warnings. A credit institution was reprimanded by the
2009 2010 2011
MFSA FIAU FIAU & MFSA FIAU & LGA