FCA signals streamlining of its own processes and toughening up of the regulatory gateway
We discussed N v RBS and the large fine levied against Deutsche Bank as a result of operating accounts on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. As we explained, the issue caused by banks taking a more stringently risk-averse approach (‘de-risking’) was the increasing number of people excluded from the banking systems which, with more and more transactions occurring online and the decreasing use of cash, had the effect of excluding or marginalising people from swathes of society as well as causing difficulties if such parties needed to instruct lawyers to provide advice. A customer excluded from regular banking facilities might still need to process transactions, but the net effect of the exclusion could cause them to rely on non-standard and alternative methods of transferring funds. Rather than making payments safer and better regulated, and reducing the risk of money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities, this use of underground or unregulated and unmonitored spheres is therefore likely to have the opposite effect: making it harder to detect and report suspicious activity.
Concern about de-risking practices and financial exclusion is not new. In February 2016, the FCA published a statement saying that it was aware that some banks no longer offer financial services to entire categories of customer they associate with a higher risk but that ‘effective money-laundering risk management need not result in wholesale de-risking’. The FCA recommended that banks should use ‘judgement and common sense’, saying ‘this is what we would regard as an effective risk-based approach’.
International organisations have also sought to deal with this problem: the World Bank has been actively examining this issue for years, pointing out that ‘de-risking can frustrate AML/CFT [combating the financing of terrorism] objectives and may not be an effective way to fight financial crime and terrorist financing’. The G20 High-Level Principles for Digital Financial Inclusion strongly encourage a risk-based approach as opposed to de-risking entire categories of customers or accounts.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is the latest body to recognise and seek to address this problem. In March it observed the increasing amount of de-risking being undertaken by banks and financial institutions and the impact this had on issues of customer protection and financial stability. On the basis of these observations and an information-gathering exercise, it published three regulatory instruments designed to deal with the problem. Echoing the guidance cited above, the instruments confirm that it is not necessary to refuse to provide facilities to entire categories of customer in order to comply with anti-money laundering obligations and counter terrorist financing. The instruments reiterate that the refusal of banking facilities could be an entirely appropriate approach to risk in certain circumstances, but that it could also be a sign of ineffective anti-money laundering and terrorist financing risk management: using a crane to crush a fly.
While recommendations that banks should take a risk-based approach (rather than take part in wholesale de-risking) are welcome, such guidance does nothing to address the commercial reality in which banks operate. Considering the possibility of heavy criminal sanctions and reputational risk against flaccid (albeit genuine) recommendations, it is clear where the balance lies.
One attempt at finding a solution to this problem can be found in the Payment Account Directive 2014/92, recognised by the EBA as imposing a conflicting requirement upon financial institutions. This provides the right to a basic payment account for those who are legally resident in the EU, predicated on the need to foster the participation of EU citizens in the internal market and its benefits. The directive was implemented in the UK by way of the Payment Account Regulations 2015 and, while the regulations were amended following Brexit so that the EU is now treated as a third country, the right to a basic payment account for those legally resident in the UK has been retained in UK law, subject to eligibility criteria.
The regulations require the provision of basic accounts to ensure no one is discriminated against, including those with no fixed address, asylum seekers and those without residence permits. These are parties who, by their very nature, are likely to be considered higher risk and therefore more likely to be denied an account. The regulations also make it clear that such a basic account can only be terminated in specific circumstances such as non-compliance with anti-money laundering legislation, but not because undertaking the necessary checks is time-consuming or otherwise onerous. While a step in the right direction, the regulations lack teeth: a refusal to open an account may result in a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, but this would be unlikely to give any bankers a sleepless night.
It is clear a problem has been identified. The solution, however, remains elusive.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period July 2021 - September 2021.
Rebecca Niblock and Edward Grange examine the key changes & similarities to extradition law following Brexit. The introduction of new surrender arrangements under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Changes effected under the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020.
The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, has approved the new guideline hourly rates (GHR) proposed by the CJC and the Stewart committee which will come into effect on 1st October 2021.
These new rates are a result of the final report of the Civil Justice Council released at the end of July 2021 and the forerunning consultation that took place between 8 January and 31 March 2021.
Rebecca Niblock and Mary Young follow on from an article they wrote in September 2020 about whether there should be a right to banking, and the possibly unintended consequences of banking facilities being withdrawn or frozen.
In a article originally written for Legal Action Group, Rebecca Niblock and Edward Grange, examine two important changes since the last edition of Extradition law: a practitioner’s guide.
On 20 July 2021 Vue Entertainment Ltd (‘Vue’) was fined £750,000 and ordered to pay costs of £130,000 following a fatal accident at the Star City cinema in Birmingham on 9 March 2018.
This last year has undoubtedly been a busy and challenging one for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). It has seen additional activity arising from its response to the Covid pandemic, the further responsibilities it has taken on post-Brexit (see our related blog: #Brexit, the CMA and competition enforcement), and its work concerning the design and implementation of a pro-competition regime in digital markets. This article looks at its recently published Annual Report and Impact Assessment, calls for change, and the work it has been doing in relation to digital markets.
Charities are not immune to financial crime, fraud or other wrong-doing; there are a number of ways in which charities may be exploited by criminals.
On 9 July 2021 Southern Water Services Ltd (SWS) was fined £90 million, to be paid out of company operating profits, in what was the largest fine ever imposed on a water company.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of a cross-section of news stories in the period April 2021 - June 2021.
The recent case of R v Wood Limited Treatment highlights the problems faced by prosecution authorities in proving causation for the purposes of establishing criminal liability for corporate manslaughter.
Account Freezing Orders (AFrOs) are a measure introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and have been available to a wide range of law enforcement agencies since February 2018.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in its annual business plan published today, sets out its areas of focus for the year ahead. It is, as ever, essential reading for all those in the regulated sector.
In September 2020 the FCA published a statement regarding the listing of cannabis-related businesses (CRBs) in the UK. Since then several CRBs have been admitted to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and appetite for investments in the medicinal cannabis industry continues to grow.
The head of the Youth Justice Board has rightly criticised the Government’s plans to raise child custodial sentences. At a time when England and Wales falls behind most European countries in protecting children with the lowest age of criminal responsibility (10), it is inexplicable that the Government is taking a further regressive step by seeking to increase the length of time that children must spend in prison.
Many art dealers, galleries and auction houses are now subject to the UK’s anti-money laundering regime and are defined as art market participants (AMPs) - see our related blog The compulsory embrace of the art market by the UK's Anti-Money Laundering regime. On 28 June HMRC published its first assessment of the key areas that AMPs should consider when conducting their own assessments of the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing to which their business is subject.
In March 2021 the Chancellor announced the establishment of a taskforce to investigate those who may have fraudulently made use of government schemes set up to protect individuals and businesses against the economic impact of COVID-19 – such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) (widely referred to as the Furlough scheme), the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ Scheme.
For the fourth year the FCA has published research on the changing relationship between consumers and cryptoassets. In spite of the pandemic, the strong upward trend in public engagement and media coverage has continued, with the FCA estimating 2.3 million adults now hold cryptoassets.
A Director at the National Crime Agency recently voiced concern about crypto assets being used to fund property purchases in the UK. The NCA’s Nigel Leary was quoted by The Times as saying: “Anything purchased with crypto assets I’d be slightly sceptical about. I’d like to see why they’re being done in that way and what the requirement is for that anonymity, and why it needed to be done in a crypto transaction.”
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility