|
Booklet:
Wholesale
Payment Systems
Section: Wholesale
Payment Systems Risk Management
Subsection:
Legal
(Compliance) Risk
|
| |
|
|
Legal/compliance
risk arises from an institution’s failure to enact appropriate policies,
procedures, or controls to ensure it conforms to laws, regulations, contractual
arrangements, and other legally binding agreements and requirements. In
particular, legal risks can result if a financial institution does not
provide adequate attention to the operating circulars, procedures and
rules of the payment and settlement systems in which it participates.
Similarly, an institution’s contractual relationships with customers,
counterparties, and vendors must be sound and appropriate to the relevant
legal framework(s) such as payment and bankruptcy frameworks. Contracts,
among financial institutions, their customers, and counterparties are
also important to allocate risk-sharing responsibilities applicable to
payments. Finally, an institution must ensure it is in compliance with
all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations governing payments
activity, including the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and laws
regarding economic sanctions Appendix D provides details on the general
legal framework for payments and securities settlement systems.
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an agency of the U.S. Treasury,
administers a series of laws imposing economic sanctions against targeted
hostile foreign countries to further U.S. foreign policy and national
security objectives. The U.S. government exercises economic sanctions
through trade embargoes, blocked assets controls, travel bans, and other
commercial and financial restrictions. The economic sanctions programs
of the U.S. government are powerful foreign policy tools. Their success
requires active participation and support of every financial institution.
The Secretary of the Treasury manages the sanctions for the U.S. The U.S.
Government mandates that all financial institutions located in the U.S.,
overseas branches of U.S. financial institutions, and, in certain instances,
overseas subsidiaries of U.S. financial institutions, comply with economic
sanctions and embargo programs administered under regulations issued by
OFAC. In general, the regulations:
| |
Block
accounts and other assets of countries identified as being a threat
to national security by the President of the United States (this always
involves accounts and assets of the sanctioned countries’ governments;
it may also involve nationals of the sanctioned countries). In addition,
OFAC also blocks the accounts of individuals on OFAC’s Specially
Designated Nationals (SDN) listing who may not be associated with
a sanctioned country. |
| |
Prohibit
unlicensed trade and financial transactions with such countries. U.S.
law requires that assets and accounts be blocked when such property
is located in the U.S., is held by U.S. individuals or entities, or
comes into the possession or control of U.S. individuals or entities.
The definition of assets and property is very broad and covers direct,
indirect, present, future, and contingent interests. Certain individuals
and entities located around the world that are acting on behalf of
sanctioned country governments have been identified by the U.S. Treasury
and must be treated as if they are part of the sanctioned governments.
U.S. banks must block funds transfers that are remitted: |
| |
 |
By,
or on behalf of a blocked individual or entity; |
| |
 |
To,
or through a blocked entity; or |
| |
 |
In
connection with a transaction in which a blocked individual or entity
has an interest. |
Financial
institutions receiving instructions to make a payment that falls into
one of these categories are required to execute the payment order and
place the funds into a blocked account. Customers cannot cancel or amend
a payment order after the U.S. bank has received it. Once assets or funds
are blocked, they may be released only by specific authorization from
the U.S. Treasury. If OFAC compliance issues are found during an examination,
the examiner should follow up with the bank regulatory agency’s
compliance area to determine whether the financial institution needs to
acquire subject matter expert support.
Bank
Secrecy Act (BSA)
Financial institutions should develop and provide for the continued administration
of a program reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with
the record keeping and reporting requirements set forth in subchapter
II of the Bank Secrecy Act.
The BSA requires a written compliance program that is approved by the
board of directors. The board must note the approval in the board minutes.
The compliance program must include, at a minimum:
| |
Provision
for a system of internal controls to ensure ongoing compliance; |
| |
Provision
for independent testing for compliance to be conducted by institution
personnel or by an outside party; |
| |
Designation
of an individual or individuals responsible for coordinating and monitoring
day-to-day compliance, and |
| |
Provision
for training for appropriate personnel. |
USA
PATRIOT Act
On October 26, 2001, the President signed the Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act. The USA PATRIOT Act contains strong measures
to prevent, detect, and prosecute terrorism and international money laundering.
The provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that most affect financial institutions
are those contained in Title III. Among other things, Title III amends
the Bank Secrecy Act and provides the Treasury Department and federal
agencies with enhanced authority to combat international money laundering
and block terrorist access to the U.S. financial system.
The Act is far-reaching in scope, covering a broad range of financial
activities and institutions. One such provision is section 312 –
Due Diligence for Correspondent and Private Banking Accounts. Section
312 requires a U.S. financial institution that maintains a correspondent
account or private banking account for a non-U.S. person to establish
appropriate and, if necessary, enhanced due diligence procedures to detect
and report instances of money laundering. Section 312 also describes specific
enhanced due diligence standards for U.S. financial institutions that
enter into correspondent banking relationships with foreign banks operating
under offshore banking licenses or under banking licenses issued by countries
that have been:
| |
Designated
as non-cooperative with international anti-money laundering principles
by an international body (such as the Financial Action Task Force)
with the concurrence of the U.S. representative to that body, or |
| |
The
subject of special measures imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury
under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. |
In
addition, section 312 describes minimum anti-money laundering due diligence
standards for the maintenance of private banking accounts by U.S. financial
institutions for non-U.S. persons. The Treasury Department (Treasury)
is authorized to issue regulations implementing section 312. The Act provides
that the provisions of section 312 became effective July 23, 2002, whether
or not final regulations were in place. Because of the complexity of the
issues raised by the proposed rule, Treasury did not promulgate a final
rule by July 23, 2002, but rather issued an interim final rule that was
effective immediately. The interim final rule requires that insured depository
institutions, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, and Edge and
Agreement corporations comply with the statutory requirements of section
312.
The interim final rule also provides compliance guidance to financial
institutions. This guidance, which is set forth in supplementary information
and not as a regulation, indicates what Treasury would consider as “reasonable”
due diligence policies and procedures pending the issuance of a final
rule. According to Treasury’s guidance, these policies and procedures
include (1) focusing on accounts that pose the highest risk of money laundering,
(2) according priority to those accounts opened on or after July 23, 2002,
and (3) complying with existing best practice standards for banks, such
as those issued by the Wolfsberg Group in May 2002, the Clearing House
in March 2002, and the Bank for International Settlements in October 2001.
Treasury noted that it would be reasonable for an institution not to apply
every best practice standard if it has a justifiable basis for not adopting
a particular practice.
Until Treasury issues a final rule implementing section 312, examiners
should make certain covered banking organizations are aware of the specific
provisions of the law and have reasonable policies and procedures in place
to assure and monitor compliance. Also, in accordance with existing practices
concerning anti-money laundering related matters, examiners should ensure
that a banking organization is in compliance with the terms of section
312.
|