Search results

The purpose of the paper is to explain FinCEN's money services business rule (MSB Rule) revising the regulations that apply to MSBs.

The paper details the principal revisions in the new MSB Rule, including an amended definition of an MSB, an activity threshold, and applicability of the rule to foreign‐located MSBs, money transmitters, dealers in foreign exchange, check cashiers, and issuers of travelers' checks as defined in the rule.

The final rule clarifies which activities subject a person to the Bank Secrecy Act's rules pertaining to MSBs and subjects certain foreign‐located MSBs with a US presence to US rules.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

This paper aims to provide an empirical analysis of the effects of regulatory enforcement and customer risk determinants on money laundering risk judgment. The study further explores the moderating impact of regulatory enforcement on compliance officers in the banking and money service business (MSB) sectors. The analysis is conducted to find the important factors that contribute to the issues of risk judgement among compliance officers to establish effective anti-money laundering (AML) and countering financing of terrorism compliance at the financial institutions, as highlighted in the National Risk Assessment Report 2017 by the Central Bank of Malaysia.

An experimental study with four different scenarios of case studies distributed to 124 compliance officers at the banking and MSB sectors was conducted via online platforms. The paper uses a quantitative approach via structural equation modelling.

The result shows a significant effect of customer risk determinants and regulatory enforcement on money laundering risk judgement, taking into account competency as the control measure. A further test on the interaction effects of both determinants shows a significant result on the money laundering risk judgement. The empirical evidence indicated that regulatory enforcement influenced compliance officers’ money laundering risk judgement and suspicious transaction report submission. In other words, the banking and MSB sectors’ AML compliance significantly depends on the regulators’ enforcement activity.

This study is limited to two independent variables: regulatory enforcement and customer risk determinants. Future studies may consider other factors affecting compliance officers’ money laundering risk judgement, such as technical competency, knowledge management, digitalization and technology and ethical issues.

This study provides several theoretical and practical implications. Emphasizing the excellent quality of judgement and, eventually, good quality of reporting the suspicious transactions will not be achieved merely from enforcing fines and punishment, but comprehensive measures must be taken. Increasing the competency and training, educating the compliance officers, supporting the industry and practitioners with incentives and digitalization, enhancing the campaign and awareness among the public and standardizing the policy shall be the good initiatives for the regulatory enforcement to establish.

This paper provides a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge and fulfills the significant gaps in the literature on money laundering, not to mention, the integration between behavioural studies and anti-money laundering compliance, which has scarcely been statistically evident from the research studies.

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.

To summarize FinCEN’s new interpretive guidance on how its regulations apply to business models involving convertible virtual currencies (“CVCs”).

Highlights the most significant aspects of FinCEN’s CVC guidance, including several of the CVC business models discussed in the guidance.

FinCEN’s latest guidance does not create any new legal requirements but clarifies how existing regulations apply to business models involving CVCs.

Practitioners advising on CVC issues should be familiar with FinCEN’s latest guidance and how FinCEN regulations may impact their clients.

Highlights the most important takeaways from FinCEN’s guidance based on our firm’s experience in the CVC space. Lawyers representing clients on CVC issues will find this article valuable.

This paper aims to explore the implications of the 2014 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) publication and guidelines on virtual currency definitions and the overall impact of blockchain technology on anti-money laundering (AML) compliance and regulation. The report cites three case study examples, which the FATF paper uses and which this paper questions as to their relevance, especially to the formal banking sector.

The paper has provided a critical analysis of a FATF publication and guideline document. Additional secondary data has been used on blockchain technology and to analyse the relevance and implications of the case studies used in the FATF document.

The main findings are that virtual currency technology has the potential to support AML frameworks within banking when and if they are better understood. However, generic case examples of virtual currency legal cases are not necessarily useful when developing AML risk assessment frameworks within the banking sector.

The implications from the research affect any financial organisation undertaking AML risk analysis or compliance especially for virtual currencies. It applies to the banking, insurance and auditing professions and is of interest to academics working on virtual and digital currencies.

The social implications are that virtual currency technology can be used to add protection to banking transactions and could also be considered for client identity information such as beneficial ownership.

The originality of this paper is the topic of blockchain technology being considered in AML frameworks and the critical analysis of the FATF cases.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the recent (Dec`15) introduction of the Bitlicensing rules in New York and consider from a banking perspective how this will impact on their own risk assessment processes. The paper also outlines the challenges of applying financial regulation to companies that have an area of expertise and business that is more aligned to software development, rather than financial service provision.

This paper is a viewpoint paper, which offers a critical discussion on the FATF guidelines on virtual currencies. The paper compares developments that are currently occurring within the virtual currency sector in particularly the new Bitlicensing process in New York State and discusses the implications to the banking sector on risk assessment processes for virtual currency transactions.

This paper will benefit the banking and regulation industries as well as economic and banking academics and anyone with an interest in virtual and digital currency technology.

This paper is unique in that it examines the issue of virtual currency regulation from a banking perspective. It explains the virtual currency technology as a means to be enhancing banking risk assessment, for clients seeking to incorporate virtual currency transactions into their business. This paper impacts on the banking and regulatory sectors because it critically examines the current practice of over regulation and the impact that this has on alternative financial systems, such as digital and virtual currencies. The paper offers a theoretical framework as well as citing current practical reports of how regulation has already started to affect the financial services landscape. The impact of getting this wrong can lead to increased criminal activity, and this paper highlights how susceptible the financial sector is to this.

This paper aims to explain the de-risking phenomenon through Luhmann’s risk/danger model and demonstrate that de-risking should be facilitated and encouraged.

The paper applies Luhmann’s system theory and more specifically his risk/danger model to describe the de-risking phenomenon and identify recommendations to address its consequences.

The paper finds that re-defining risk and the anti-money laundering (AML)’s community’s understanding of it can support key stakeholders’ understanding of money laundering (ML) risk and the way to better address consequences of AML decisions.

The paper has implications for the banking and regulatory community in relation to the interpretation of de-risking. As systems aim to minimise their exposure to risk, they should not be prevented from de-risking.

This paper aims to move away from a narrative description of AML phenomena and presents a theoretical foundation for the analysis of ML risk. The current response to de-risking which demonises it and aims to prevent it is deconstructed through this theoretical lens.

The purpose of this analysis is to present the history of anti‐money laundering efforts in the United States as it applies both domestically and internationally, and demonstrate how this new legislation, if enacted, will mark a dramatic change in the customary treatment of international financial transactions and to international long‐arm jurisdiction and law enforcement. If enacted as proposed, this legislation may provide the tools necessary to achieve substantial progress in this effort.

The purpose of this paper is to show how global regulation of cryptocurrencies and other cybercurrencies can assist in addressing the challenges of attribution when investigating ransomware attacks and other types of cybercrime using these payment methods.

A literature review, looking at current academic research and discourse on the topic cryptocurrency regulation, is conducted to highlight current thinking and perceived difficulties in implanting a global regulatory framework. In addition, the research explores how governments have addressed the risks posed by cryptocurrencies and how regulation has been implemented. The research focuses on the regulatory approaches of Australia, Europe and the Americas to determine whether they could feasibly address the risks posed by cryptocurrencies and be implemented on a global scale.

To date, few sustained efforts have been made to regulate Bitcoin or other cybercurrencies. Where regulation has been introduced, it has often proven too costly to implement, thereby, stifling Bitcoin industry growth, or too ad hoc to function effectively. These regulatory pitfalls are substantiated by the continuing difficulty faced by law enforcement agencies, in identifying individual Bitcoin users and separating those that are using them for nefarious purposes from those that are using them for legitimate ones. These challenges appear to grow exponentially when it comes to prosecuting criminals for Bitcoin-related offences, due to the enormous lack of agreement within the justice system of most countries as to the appropriate legal definition for Bitcoin. This research highlights three characteristics that will be vital to the success of any global regulatory framework. These are consistency, clarity and cost-effective implementation. A regulatory framework for Bitcoin that lacks any one of these elements will fail to meet the requirements of every stakeholder in the regulatory process. A framework that is too costly to implement will stifle fintech innovation, subsequently depriving national economies of the multitude of potential benefits promised by fostering fintech entrepreneurship. Equally, a framework that is inconsistent will hamper the global cooperation necessary to combat Bitcoin-related crime.

This research evaluates research, discourse and regulatory responses from academic and governmental sources and discusses how a global response to cryptocurrency regulation will help address the growing problem of attribution when it comes to ransomware attacks, which has experienced a considerable spike in recent months.

This paper aims to compare the prepaid card laws/regulations in Nigeria, the UK, the USA and India with the aim of determining the best approach to regulating prepaid cards, that is the approach that promotes financial inclusion and also makes the product less attractive for money laundering.

This paper relies mainly on primary and secondary data drawn from the public domain. It also relies on documentary research.

This paper makes the following findings and recommendations: Nigeria has the best approach to regulating providers of prepaid cards. Nigeria’s approach could foster financial inclusion and at the same time mitigate the money laundering risks associated with prepaid cards. Nigeria’s approach is not too strict like the Indian approach and it is not too relaxed like the UK and the USA approach. Operators, including mobile/telecommunications operators, wishing to operate money transfer schemes in Nigeria are allowed to do so with approval from the Central Bank of Nigeria and in strict conjunction with licensed deposit-taking banks or financial institutions. The UK, the USA and India are recommended to adopt Nigeria’s approach. The UK and the USA have the best approach to regulating agents of prepaid cards. Both countries require prepaid card providers to maintain a current list of agents and make it available to the relevant authorities upon request. The approach allows regulatory agencies to effectively monitor and supervise prepaid card agents. India and Nigeria are advised to clarify their approach regarding the regulation of prepaid card agents. The prepaid card laws/regulations of those countries should be modified to specify if the agent of a prepaid card provider is required to be licensed or registered by a competent authority or if the prepaid card provider (the principal) is required to maintain an updated list of agents which must be made accessible to a designated competent authority, when requested. The new changes will afford regulatory authorities the opportunity to effectively monitor and supervise prepaid card agents. India’s approach to thresholds would preclude most individuals in the intended target market from accessing basic financial products, as most people typically do not have residential addresses that could be confirmed by reference to formal documentation. India should adopt the “risk-based approach” and not the “wholesale de-risking approach”.

Given their low-risk characteristics, closed-loop cards, specifically cards which do not allow reloads or withdrawals, remain outside the scope of this paper.

Although there have been researchers who adopted the comparative approach like Jean J Luyat and Will Cain, the comparative approach adopted by those researchers was not detailed enough and also was not aimed at seeking to answer the research question in Section 1 of this paper. Both writers focused on only the aspect of financial inclusion making the whole research a one-sided approach. Jean J Luyat focused on “how regulation had an impact on the development of prepaid cards in Japan and Europe”. He was able to discover that prepaid cards were growing rapidly in Japan but not gaining acceptance as a payment method in the European Union (EU) and France. He aligned such growth in Japan to different factors including regulation. He stated that Japan had a simple and flexible regulatory framework compared to the EU and France which have a complex regulatory system with strict prudential requirements. Nothing was said about the money laundering aspect of such regulation and neither was anything said about thresholds and other optional recommendations canvased by the Financial Action Task Force. The Electronic Money Directive referred to by Jean J Luyat has already been repealed and a second Electronic Money Directive is in place. A comparative approach is adopted in this research seeking to compare the approach in Nigeria with that of the UK, the USA and India. Each of these countries adopted different approaches. The results are to help answer the research question in Section 1 of this paper. The countries were selected on the basis of how strict their regulatory regime is. India’s regulatory regime is the strictest while the UK and the USA are the most lenient. Nigeria is caught in between strict/lenient.