Money Laundering: Review of the Reporting ... - Dematerialised ID
Money Laundering: Review of the Reporting ... - Dematerialised ID
Money Laundering: Review of the Reporting ... - Dematerialised ID
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
kpmg<br />
<strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regime for handling Suspicious Activity Reports<br />
Report <strong>of</strong> recommendations<br />
KPMG LLP<br />
initial set <strong>of</strong> potential reasons for suspicion which disclosing entities would select as a<br />
mandatory field, with a fur<strong>the</strong>r free text field for any additional comments or information.<br />
7.3.3 ECB should document clear guidance for <strong>the</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> standard form, including<br />
for any sector or industry specific fields. This should be reviewed on a regular basis for<br />
its ongoing appropriateness in <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> ECB’s experience <strong>of</strong> reporting by disclosing<br />
entities and <strong>the</strong> queries addressed to <strong>the</strong> DMC and LU.<br />
7.3.4 Some disclosing entities already identify fast-track disclosures. All disclosing entities<br />
should be encouraged to use <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge and experience to identify both fast-track<br />
and o<strong>the</strong>r potentially high priority SARs and flag <strong>the</strong>se up when disclosing to ECB. The<br />
standard SAR form should allow a SAR to be marked as ei<strong>the</strong>r a fast-track, high impact<br />
or standard disclosure. If SARs are marked as fast-track or high impact, <strong>the</strong> form should<br />
include a mandatory field for <strong>the</strong> disclosing entity to explain why it is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two<br />
categories.<br />
7.3.5 The categories <strong>of</strong> activity which should fall under <strong>the</strong> fast-track and high impact<br />
categories would be as follows:<br />
• Fast-track: activities which are time-critical and require pre-emptive law enforcement<br />
action within <strong>the</strong> next 24 or 48 hours.<br />
- For example, those where an institution knew that a customer was returning to<br />
collect cash within one or two days, and VAT Carousel fraud.<br />
- Consent issues.<br />
• High impact: likely to achieve a disruption, confiscation or prosecution but not time<br />
critical.<br />
- Activities which have already taken place but which relate to a specific and<br />
identifiable predicate <strong>of</strong>fence, including customers who exhibited criteria which<br />
indicated a link to terrorism.<br />
- Activities which meet <strong>the</strong> criteria identified by LEAs as being high impact as<br />
notified to ECB and <strong>the</strong>nce to disclosing entities.<br />
- A type <strong>of</strong> activity which, when associated with o<strong>the</strong>r information held by <strong>the</strong><br />
disclosing entity, gives a high degree <strong>of</strong> suspicion.<br />
- O<strong>the</strong>r activities which <strong>the</strong> disclosing entity has determined are high impact,<br />
depending on <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspicious activity and <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
information available.<br />
7.3.6 Those SARs which are flagged up as fast-track disclosures should ei<strong>the</strong>r be faxed by <strong>the</strong><br />
DMC on receipt to <strong>the</strong> LU (if manually submitted to <strong>the</strong> DMC), or should be<br />
automatically notified by <strong>the</strong> system to <strong>the</strong> LU when submitted electronically.<br />
7.3.7 A fur<strong>the</strong>r standard field to be marked as appropriate by <strong>the</strong> disclosing entity would<br />
identify whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> SAR related to a suspicion <strong>of</strong> fraud or is o<strong>the</strong>rwise “unlikely to merit<br />
investigation by an LEA”.<br />
jo/fh/519 65