Tag: Luxembourg

In an Administrative Sanction published by Luxembourg’s CSSF, a fine of €56,000 was imposed on Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A.

Most of the notice relates to AML compliance failings, but included was a complaint as regards to the resolution of sanctions screening hits and a delay in implementing changes to lists for screening purposes:

“At the time of the on-site inspection, hundreds of name screening alerts had been treated with significant delays and 42 alerts remained unnoticed by the PFS. These delays constitute a breach of the obligations foreseen in Article 3(2) point (d) of the AML/CFT Law and in Article 33(1) of CSSF Regulation No 12-02, as the PFS was unable to identify “without delay” persons subject to restrictive measures in financial matters and therefore apply “without delay” potential restrictive measures in financial matters as the case may be“.

Luxembourg’s financial services regulator, the CSSF, has issued a fine against Rakuten Bank SA for various compliance failings including sanctions and AML.

One of the failings identified was “accumulated significant and recurring delays in processing alerts relating to customer screening against list of persons subject to restrictive measures in financial matters”. The Notice identified a particular example of a customer subject to anti-terrorism sanctions where the review of the alert took more than six months.

Another failing identified was a failure to “apply ‘without delay’ potential restrictive measures in financial matters”.

Luxembourg’s financial services regulator, the CSSF, has issued a fine of €214,000 against Alipay (Europe) Limited SA for various AML and other compliance failings.

Amongst these was a failure promptly deal with “financial sanctions related alerts”, with the CSSF noting that Alipay “would not have been in a position to apply restrictive measures in financial matters without delay”.

Luxembourg’s financial services regulator, the CSSF, has today announced a fine of €40,000 on Dock Financial S.A.

The fines relates to AML and sanctions compliance failings identified as part of an on-site inspection between December 2021 and November 2022.

In relation to sanctions, the CSSF has found that:

“A substantial part of the EMI’s client portfolio was not subject to name screening controls on a daily basis, over a substantial period of time, thus constituting a failure to comply with the obligation to detect persons, entities and groups subject to restrictive measures in financial matters without delay so that the necessary restrictive measures can be applied to them in line with all United Nations Security Council resolutions, acts adopted by the European Union (resolutions and acts directly applicable in Luxembourg) and national regulations“.

This was identified as a breach of CSSF regulations requiring detection of designated persons.

The Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) in Luxembourg has imposed fines of €109,000 and €17,200 for compliance failings on abrdn Investments Luxembourg S.A.

The fine of €17,200 related to failings in relation to AML/CFT, and included in these failings was failure to “perform initial name screenings controls against international and European financial sanctions lists”.

The CSSF had conducted on-site inspections in 2020.

The Luxembourg financial services regulator, the CSSF, has today published a report of an administrative penalty imposed on Fuchs & Associés Finance SA.

The fine was €785,000.

Some of the compliance failings relate to AML and KYC more generally, and some were specific to sanctions. The sanctions-specific failings were:

• • • “name screening controls aiming at detecting persons subject to prohibitions and restrictive measures in financial matters had not been carried out for all clients of the trading desk, as their names were not included in the databases used to feed the name screening systems”;
    • “the name screening tools were updated only once a week, and no additional controls were in place, particularly when new European and United Nations lists are issued”; and
    • “the absence of a complete and exhaustive client database”.