Netherlands – sanctions fines imposed by Dutch National Bank upheld and reduced on appeal

An unnamed financial services provider regulated by the Dutch National Bank has challenged fines imposed upon it in relation to KYC and due diligence failings including in relation to sanctions screening.

The DNB had initially fined the provider €1.1m and €625,000, but these were reduced through a review process to €850,000 and €480,940.

The first fine in particular related to allegations of a failure to screen any of the sample of analysed customers against EU and Dutch sanctions lists.

On further appeal to the Rotterdam District Court the fines were upheld but further reduced to €718,841.25 and €451,250.

Germany – prosecutors seek confiscation of €720 million

It has been reported that Federal Prosecutors in Germany have applied to confiscate €720 million in frozen assets belonging to Russia’s National Securities Depository.

After the NSD had been designated it had sought to move the funds and made transfer requests to JP Morgan and Commerzbank which refused to proceed with the transfer. As such the prosecutors are seeking to have the funds treated as the proceeds of crime and so confiscatable under ordinary anti-money laundering rules.

Cyprus – 28 reports of possible sanctions breaches in last 6 months

It has been reported today that 28 reports to the Cypriot authorities have been received between May and November of this year.

The reports are said to have come from multiple sources including the Ministry of Finance, the Foreign Ministry, the anti-money laundering unit MOKAS, the Association of Cyprus Auditors, the Cyprus Bar Association, the Legal Service, and the Central Bank.

UK’s FCA publishes review of sanctions compliance

The UK’s financial services regulator has today published a report based on its review of sanctions compliance by a sample of 90 regulated firms.

The FCA emphasised the importance it places on compliance with sanctions and the proactive approach it intends to take to enforcement.

The FCA also published examples of what it considers to be good practice and bad practice. The examples of bad practice include:

(i) insufficient information given to management on sanctions risks, and insufficient management attention;

(ii) global sanctions policies that are insufficiently attuned to the specifics of the UK’s regime;

(iii) over-reliance on third-party screening tools without sufficient oversight or attention to the detail and calibration of such tools;

(iv) insufficient contingency planning in advance of anticipated changes to sanctions;

(v) insufficient resources applied to sanctions compliance resulting in significant backlogs; and

(vi)  insufficient and inappropriate calibration of of screening tools allowing either too many false positives, or gaps in screening hits.

UK’s OFSI enforces and gives Wise words of compliance advice

The UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has announced its most recent enforcement action, coupled with changes to its Guidance on its attitude to enforcement.

On 29 June 2022 a new person was added to the UK’s sanctions list as a “Designated Person”. At 4am the next morning a debit card in that Designated Person’s name, but relating to a separate company (albeit one owned or controlled by the Designated Person) was used to withdraw £250. OFSI’s published action relates to Wise Payments Limited (Wise), the regulated financial services firm with which the account was held. While Wise had reacted to the designation of its customer by blocking transfers into or out of the account, its policy was not to stop debit cards on the basis that it often had a lot of false positives with sanctions screening and that it had a duty to its customers as well. The debit card was not blocked until the after the weekend as its sanctions team did not work on the weekend. No further withdrawals were made over this period.

OFSI’s view in its notice is that blocking debit cards while ascertaining if a screening match is genuine is a wholly proportionate policy for managing sanctions risk. Further, not having a sanctions team to review screening hits over the weekend was insufficient.

Thus while the value of the breach was low, and Wise self-reported promptly and co-operated, OFSI applied its “severity” test and determined that Wise’s actions amounted to a moderately severe breach. It was on this basis that OFSI has published the details of this breach, albeit it did not impose a civil penalty nor propose a criminal prosecution. This is the first time that OFSI has used its new “disclosure” power in this way.

The other noteworthy factor is that Wise’s conduct was treated as “making available” assets to a designated person. Wise’s role was passive – it took no step to transfer or give assets to the Designated Person. Nonetheless, the failure to block the debit card was interpreted as itself amounting to “making available” what should be frozen assets to a designated person. This is helpful in clarifying the breadth of the view taken by OFSI on what can amount to “making available”.

Netherlands – National Bank critical of de Volksbank sanctions compliance

The annual report for de Volksbank N.V. has revealed the results of a sanctions-review by the Dutch National Bank.

The report states:

“Furthermore, de Volksbank has initiated a comprehensive remediation project to enhance the customer screening and transaction screening systems. This project will remediate findings from regulatory testing of our screening systems conducted by DNB in the second half of 2022, and is expected to be finalised in the first half of 2024”.

The report also notes that the DNB had identified compliance failings in the AML and anti-terrorist financing space, and de Volksbank has made a provision of €1 million in anticipation of the expected fine.

Germany: BaFin investigating German bank over Iran sanctions

The German financial services regulator, BaFin, has issued a press release confirming an investigation into the money laundering and sanctions compliance of the bank Varengold Bank AG. The particular focus is Iran sanctions.

BaFin has prohibited the bank from processing payment transactions involving Iran, or person or companies resident in Iran. BaFin has also appointed a representative to oversee compliance with this prohibition.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress