If a company finds it is governed by the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing (AML/CTPF) Act, it has two priority steps to take: register as an entity subject to the Act after stating a type of activities governed by the Act, and appoint an officer responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act’s requirements under section 10. This appointment must be reported to the relevant supervisory authority such as the State Revenue Service or the Financial and Capital Markets Commission.
A person to be appointed as officer in charge must satisfy a number of criteria prescribed by the Act, for instance:
Section 10.1(2) of the Act allows the company to lay down requirements in addition to these criteria, for instance, AML/CTPF certificates.
The company should have procedures in place for evaluating the person’s suitability and checking the accuracy of information. To check the information the person has provided, the company may –
The Act does not define the officer’s duties in detail but only requires that compliance with the Sanctions Act’s requirements be ensured. While the definition of duties is brief and specific, the officer in charge should be aware that this includes a wide range of duties, for instance:
A key duty is to ensure that employees involved in AML/CTPF-related activities are familiar with the Act’s requirements and are regularly trained (the officer in charge may run regular in-house training or engage an external service provider that is competent to train staff in the relevant areas). The regularity of training is key. Changes may be made not only to the Act’s requirements but also to the types and nuances of how criminals commit potential money-laundering activities, so the employees concerned must have sufficient expertise to be able to monitor potential risks inherent in this area. And any completed training on topics associated with the Act and AML/CTPF data protection requirements must be documented to ensure the company is able to present certificates to the supervisory authorities, so the employee must be able to present a certificate of completion for each training.
Our experience in recent years suggests that the supervisory authorities penalise not only companies as entities for AML/CTPF breaches but also individuals who are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act’s requirements. The officer in charge may face a warning, removal from their role, a fine for AML/CTPF breaches, and a custodial sentence under sections 195 and 195.1 of the Criminal Code.
To update your knowledge in these areas this year, we invite you to attend a webinar run by PwC`s Academy on March 1, where you can gain, improve and update your knowledge of how to –
After the webinar you will hold a PwC’s Academy certificate of completion.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to firstname.lastname@example.orgAsk question
Companies often provide various intragroup services for optimisation purposes. Whether such companies are governed by the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (the “Act”) is a question that has always come under a great deal of scrutiny. Effective from 12 July 2021, section 3 of the Act contains subsection 6, which prescribes exclusions and answers questions that group companies tend to ask when assessing whether they are governed by the Act. This article explores how intragroup services qualify for statutory exclusions.
We have written earlier about amendments to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (the “Act”), which, among other things, will make it easier for persons that are subject to the Act (“Subjects”) to report suspicious transactions and will set up a common customer due diligence tool. This article explores changes to the requirements affecting the ultimate beneficial owner (“UBO”) of a Subject.
We have spent the last year or so coming to terms with the Covid-19 pandemic, which has changed our daily lives beyond recognition. While we keep thinking mainly about the restrictions and outbreak statistics, it would be useful to figure out whether companies are now subject to a heightened risk of money laundering and terrorism and proliferation financing (“ML/TPF”) and whether the internal control systems set up by persons subject to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act are still as effective as they were before the pandemic.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.