Austrac faces a parliamentary inquiry into the effectiveness of AML and the “failures” of the supervision of financial institutions – CFCS

Anatomy of a survey: what did you miss, why and for how long?

But these steps do not appease or deter suspicious lawmakers, who have focused on key points from the country’s investigation into financial crime countermeasures.

Some of the areas of interest include Austrac’s overall responsiveness to potential issues, proactivity and responsiveness in finding AML gaps, the ability to arm law enforcement with data and assess damage. sectors not covered by compliance rules, such as lawyers and other custodians.

The full parliamentary review of Australia’s AML regime covers:

Austrac responsiveness, problem finding, resolution

The extent to which the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Center:

  • responds to and relies on reports from designated services, and
  • identifies emerging issues based on these reports;

Strengthen AML to find small problems before they turn into big ones

The extent to which Australian AML / CFT regulatory provisions could be strengthened to:

  • address governance and risk management weaknesses within designated services, and
  • identify weaknesses before systemic or large-scale AML / CFT violations occur;

Being efficient to be less attractive – for the bad guys is

The effectiveness of Anti-Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism Act 2006 (the Law) to prevent money laundering outside the banking sector;

Australia’s attractiveness as a destination for the proceeds of foreign crime and corruption, including proof of such proceeds in the Australian real estate market and other markets since the enactment of the law;

Does greater compliance with the FATF mean measurable reputation, foreign investment gains?

Australia’s compliance with the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Commonwealth Government’s response to:

  • applicable recommendations in applicable FATF reports, and
  • April 2016 Report on the Statutory Review of the Anti-Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism Act 2006 and associated rules and regulations;

the extent to which compliance with FATF recommendations prevents systemic and reputational risks to Australia, the Australian economy and Australia’s ability to access international capital;

the regulatory impact, costs and benefits of extending AML / CFT reporting obligations to designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs or “custodial professions”), often referred to as “tranche two” legislation;

Can we capture the non-bank financial professions, the gatekeepers with suggested professional standards and already in place? Or do we need a full AML update?

The manner in which:

DNFBPs take into account the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, and the existing professional obligations of DNFBPs are compatible with the AML / CFT reporting obligations; and any other related matter.

Comments are closed.