Search results

This paper aims to analyze thoroughly all of the sources of research used to develop the money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing (TF) low-risk rating, a rating attained by Norway according to the Basel Institute of Governance, and determine the reasons why Norway is one of only two countries in the world according to the 2012 report, with the other being Estonia, to gain an overall low-risk ML and TF rating.

The differences between the USA and Norway which has obtained a low-risk ranking, were compared and contrasted.

Beginning with the Basel Institute Rating index as a legitimate source for use in assessing anti-money-laundering (AML)/TF risk, and the amount of documentation used in the index’s methodology, it has been proven that the low-risk rating Norway has received is well deserved, and that the US rating of medium risk is also deserved for the time the report was published. Achieving a low-risk rating is not as ambiguous as recently thought and neither is its application on a global scale.

The paper identifies practical areas of improvement and concerns in addressing the overall issue of ML and terrorist financing.

This paper aims to contribute to the discussion about the misuse of legal persons for money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF) through the study of methodologies for countries’ legal persons and legal arrangements risk assessments in accordance with the transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons and arrangements requirements of the Financial Action Task Force.

To do that, the authors will review some of the results of preview risk assessments by selected countries, and based on that, the authors will discuss the Brazilian methodology and the achieved results.

The authors argue that this methodology can lead to better results than the most common ones and deliver outputs that are important to the development of countries’ anti-ML/TF.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to discuss the results and limitations of the current most widely used methodology for legal persons and arrangements money laundering risk assessment and to propose the use of a more efficient one.

Audit committees (ACs) have an important role to play in banks in Saudi Arabia in detecting and reporting weaknesses which may make financial crime possible. The Saudi Arabian Corporate Governance Code of 2016 comprises recommendations for ensuring the effectiveness of these committees, but cultural and behavioural factors can constitute impediments. This paper aims to explore these factors and makes recommendations.

The methodology is qualitative, using data derived from responses to a questionnaire administered to 180 current and former members of internal and external audit teams of Saudi Arabian banks.

ACs in Saudi financial institutions enjoy a high degree of functional independence of boards. Boards tend to regard ACs as part of the organisation: in contrast, AC members perceive their first duty as being owed to stakeholders. Disagreements between boards and ACs regarding disclosure of findings of systemic weaknesses which facilitate money laundering (ML) are made publicly available; this engenders transparency and avoidance of collusion. Professional qualifications and experience of AC members have improved substantially in recent years, equipping them to better discharge statutory duties regarding the detection and reporting of suspected ML.

The regulatory body, the Saudi Arabian Markets Authority, should be diligent in ensuring the presence of non-executive directors in sufficient numbers to counterbalance influence by boards. Disagreements between boards and ACs regarding internal systemic changes to prevent ML and other financial crimes should be formally recorded in minutes and made public as a matter of record.

Questionnaire responses by past and present members of ACs are unique and contribute to the literature.