Low risk is not no risk

When an institution is devising its risk-based approach to AML, and specifically to customer due diligence procedures, it needs to decide how many categories of risk it will recognise.  The discussions can sometimes take a turn for the philosophical – is it better to talk of “higher risk” than “high risk”, and is it unwise to have an odd number of categories in case that encourages the indecisive/lazy client relationship manager to select the middle one – but eventually most places end up with high, standard and low risk categories.

Most attention – regulatory and media – tends to focus on the high risk end of things.  For instance, the majority of AML-related Final Notices coming out of the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority have highlighted their subjects’ inability to (a) recognise, and (b) deal appropriately with high risk customers (often PEPs).  But danger also lurks at the other end of the spectrum: the danger of complacency.  Sometimes people make the mistake of thinking that “low risk” means “no risk” and – worse – acting accordingly.  However, I can think of no jurisdiction that recognises a category of business that is so low risk that it is exempt from due diligence – after all, how can you tell the risk category of anything until you have done at least some due diligence on it?  And how can you be sure that the initial low risk categorisation remains appropriate if you do not monitor that relationship?

I read a case study recently that highlighted the dangers of underestimating the vigilance that is needed around even the lowest-of-low risk business.  M worked as a maid in Singapore, and every week she would go to her local bank and pay in her wages.  Once a month, she would ask her bank to transfer some of her money to an account in Sri Lanka – her home country.  After four years, the bank’s auditors noticed during a random sampling exercise that many more international bank transfers were being made from M’s account.  But the bank manager hesitated: the very idea of M being a money launderer seemed ludicrous, and he didn’t want to scare off the other domestic servants with accounts at his branch by suddenly closing this one.  So he looked more closely at M’s account.  And he saw that over the past six months, a woman who had previously made small weekly deposits was how making much larger deposits on a random, but frequent, basis, and that she was also making wire transfers to other countries besides Sri Lanka.  When he asked his tellers why no-one had reported these changes, he was told that the account was categorised as low risk, and therefore had been taken off the routine monitoring list.  The matter was reported to the authorities, and they later confirmed that M was not the source of the money, but was allowing her account to be used for laundering in exchange for a small fee each month.  A few hundred more account-holders like M, and that criminal organisation was making the low risk category work very well indeed for them.

This entry was posted in AML, Due diligence and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Low risk is not no risk

  1. Claire says:

    Susan, I think people need to be educated more about what money laundering actually is. They need to understand the bigger picture. What the consequences are for society, not only for their wallet. I’m still mad at that bank manager for only telling me I shouldn’t allow my ex-husband to use my account to put money through, without explaining why. I’m an educated woman. I have a bachelor in Communication Management. I worked in a bank!!! 25 years ago, there was less talk about money laundering (not even while working at the bank, I was ever explained what it was!), so thankfully this has changed. But people are still not aware enough about what it all is about. And that by actually supporting the money laundering business, you are also supporting the crime world. People are being killed, people’s lives are being destroyed. People have to get a driver’s licence to learn the rules, to learn the law. Why not introduce a “banking licence” for people? A workshop on the financial world before you are allowed to open a bank account. I know it is a bit far-fetched. But unless people will get a proper financial education, it will stay easy to seduce them into what might seem as an innocent crime.

  2. Hello Claire
    You are absolutely right – everyone needs to know more about how to handle (and how others mishandle) money. The new school year starts here in England tomorrow, and for the first time schools will be required to teach “financial literacy” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/10304896/Money-to-be-taught-in-schools-with-lessons-on-state-spending.html).
    As for general education about money laundering, again, you’re right: people need to know that by tolerating money laundering they are guaranteeing more crime, as criminals will take the money they have laundered and reinvest it in their business – crime!
    Your idea of a banking licence is an interesting one – although of course many financial institutions rely for their profits on people being daft with their money (e.g. running up large debts on credit cards), so perhaps they would be less keen on increasing public awareness! But I do support the idea of a bank account being seen as a responsibility.
    Best wishes from Susan

  3. Claire says:

    Financial literacy is a great program! Banks are still getting too much government support, paid by tax money. People should realize they pay over and over again for financial irresponsibility. And there is not such thing as free money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s