Potential Money Laundering Activity
Staff who see potential money laundering activity frequently say nothing, because they are not certain. The threshold is much lower than they assume.
The obligation on a reporting entity is generally triggered by suspicion on reasonable grounds, not by proof, and not by a conclusion about whether an offence occurred. A staff member who thinks something does not add up has met the internal reporting threshold.
Two things follow, and both should be said plainly in training.
Do not investigate. Asking a customer probing questions to satisfy yourself risks tipping off, which is a separate offence.
Do not decide. Assessment is the compliance officer’s role. Passing on something that turns out to be innocent costs nothing.
An organisation with no internal reports is far more likely to have a culture problem than a clean customer base.
AUSTRAC publishes guidance. This is general information rather than legal advice, and obligations vary by state and territory.
See Sentrient’s AML/CTF course and whistleblower course.
4 Ways to Identify Potential Money Laundering Activity
There are a range of indicators to help you identify potential money laundering activity, ranging from suspicious customer behaviour, international transactions, larger than normal transactions and suspicious transactions. The presence of a single indicator may not necessarily raise suspicion but could warrant further monitoring and examination. Multiple indicators are more likely to result in a […]
MOST POPULAR POSTS
