Articles | Webinars
ARTICLE
OFAC Compliance Series | Part 3 of a 5 Part Series
Part 3: Tips and Tricks for a Successful OFAC Risk Assessment
By: Maleka Ali
OFAC risk assessments are the strength of any well-built OFAC compliance program. An efficient and effective program cannot be developed without knowing where the risks are hiding. Many businesses, both financial and non-financial institutions, are conducting assessments to uncover risks, design strong OFAC compliance programs, and mitigate their exposure.
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Counsel’s BSA/AML Examination Manual says that examiners may utilize a risk-based approach. However, the enforcement standards of the Office of Foreign Assets Control remain a strict liability for violations, and executive orders are not risk-based. That being said, your OFAC program should be tempered by your organization’s risk appetite and your available resources to avoid both regulatory and OFAC violations. Your OFAC program’s policies and procedures must also match or exceed the risk. Your OFAC Risk Assessment is what will help you drive your OFAC program and allow the examiners to identify the strengths and weaknesses of your program.
ARTICLE
OFAC Compliance Series | Part 2 of a 5 Part Series
Part 2: OFAC Risk Assessment Methodology
By: Maleka Ali
Your company’s OFAC risk assessment is what drives your OFAC program’s policies and procedures and allows examiners to identify the strengths and weaknesses of your program.
• The FFIEC BSA/AML Exam Manual says that examiners may utilize a risk-based approach, however, OFAC’s enforcement standards remain a strict liability for violations and executive orders are not risk based.
• That being said, your OFAC program should be tempered by the Institution’s risk appetite and available resources to avoid both regulatory and OFAC violations.
• Your program’s policies and procedures must match or exceed the risk.
ARTICLE
OFAC Compliance Series | Part 1 of a 5 Part Series
Introduction: OFAC Compliance Obligations
By: Maleka Ali
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted individuals and entities.
This includes entities and individuals such as foreign countries, regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
OFAC acts under the President’s wartime and national emergency authorities, along with powers granted by legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze assets. Many of the sanctions are based on international mandates and involve cooperation with allied governments.
ARTICLE
NEW YORK STATE OF MIND
ACAMS Exclusive
By: Maleka Ali
“It comes down to reality and it’s fine with me ‘cause I’ve let it slide” might be lyrics from our favorite Billy Joel song, but to many of us a New York state of mind is a reality.
Recently, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) passed a transaction monitoring regulation known as Section 504. Many might say, “I’m not in New York, so this will not affect me.” However, many of the requirements in the final rule are expectations already in place by examiners across the country. What makes this new regulation unique is that the NYDFS will also require an annual certification from each institution they regulate. The growing concern from those not in New York is that this is the first time the examiners’ expectations for model validation have been put to pen and paper in a regulation specifically addressing anti-money laundering (AML) monitoring programs. I predict New York’s ruling will not be isolated and other states and regulators will quickly follow suit. The new rule will be effective January 1, 2017, and the first annual confirmation of compliance will be due starting April 15, 2018.
ARTICLE
TO RISK OR NOT TO RISK
Five Questions to Ask Yourself Before Attempting to “De-risk” Your Institution
By: Maleka Ali
We have been getting mixed signals about a new anti-money laundering trend of banks ‘de-risking” undesirable accounts.
Rumors started in 2013 and made public in early 2014 that financial institutions were facing regulatory scrutiny, criticisms and fines over banking higher risk businesses. Soon the term “Operations Choke Point” was being whispered throughout the industry as the process of eliminating businesses perceived to be “too risky” by choking off their access to financial services.
This was being accomplished by having bank examiners place pressure on banks to do more when it came to due diligence of higher risk businesses. Institutions unwilling or understaffed or unequipped to take on this additional monitoring were closing these businesses in order to avoid regulatory fines.
ARTICLE
WHEN WAS YOUR LAST CHECKUP?
Do Community Banks Pay the Price for Big Bank Crimes?
By: Maleka Ali
We have been getting mixed signals about a new anti-money laundering trend of banks ‘de-risking” undesirable accounts.
I hate going to the dentist. So of course I avoid the annual checkup and the small aches and pains when I eat cold or sweet foods for as long as I can, only to risk ending up rushing to the dentist for an emergency root canal.
Just like avoiding the dentist, we can’t put off having a regular checkup of our BSA program to avoid serious problems. It might seem like a waste of time and resources especially if you feel you have low risk, but the consequences of not being prepared are huge.
ARTICLE
NINE COMMON WEAKNESSES IN A BSA/AML PROGRAM…
And How to Find Them Before Examiners Do.
By: Maleka Ali
Over the last several months, there have been headlines warning of increased scrutiny by examiners on BSA/AML and dire consequences for banks unprepared for their exams.
Many financial institutions, both big and small, are being hit with enforcement actions and severe penalties.
What should you be looking for and what can you do to shore up your BSA/AML program to ensure you don’t fall under the regulator’s lash? Let’s address nine of the most common weaknesses.
The first four weaknesses all address lack of structure or organization. Many institutions have been criticized for not having an effective suspicious activity monitoring program. It must be risk based, but to be effective it must also include four basic components.