Correspondent banking plays a pivotal role in shaping the global financial landscape. Serving as the backbone of international trade, especially for budding and developing economies, it offers a platform for banks to provide services on behalf of other financial institutions, typically situated in diverse countries. This extends to executing transactions, overseeing wire transfers, and collecting crucial documents.
One major peril that financial institutions face due to correspondent banking is the looming threat of money laundering and terrorist financing, it said. This intricate banking system provides criminals an ideal terrain to camouflage the roots of illegitimate funds, thus posing formidable challenges for regulators to track and counteract financial malfeasance.
It’s not unprecedented for banks to face the music for transgressing the rules. For instance, in 2019, UniCredit Group was slapped with a staggering $1.3bn fine due to processing disallowed transactions. Similarly, Swedbank Latvia faced a penalty of $3.4m in 2023 for facilitating transactions associated with Crimea through US-based correspondent banks.
The intricacy of transaction chains in this banking sector amplifies the difficulty of pinpointing illegal funds. Ambiguities in relationships, paired with discrepancies in AML compliance regulations, customer scrutiny, and financial crime directives across jurisdictions, pave the way for unlawful exploits into the global finance system.
Moody’s Analytics highlighted that in their quest to blur financial trails via correspondent banks, criminals deploy several tactics:
- Layering, which entails executing numerous transactions across a myriad of correspondent banks to confound tracing efforts.
- Smurfing, wherein unlawful funds are segmented into smaller transactions that appear legitimate, thus evading detection.
- Using or establishing shell companies to conceal the actual beneficiaries and origins of funds.
- Benefitting from lapses in due diligence, such as flawed KYC, feeble transaction surveillance, and inadequate risk evaluations by correspondent banks.
- Leveraging jurisdictional variances to tap into the international financial network.
To counter these risks, some institutions have turned to ‘de-risking’, a strategy of sidestepping dealings with high-risk regions or client types. However, this method, not endorsed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), often backfires. It can amplify money laundering risks, making financial transactions covert, and further diminish transparency.
Successfully curtailing money laundering threats in correspondent banking demands tenacity. Often, domestic banks, when catering to foreign banks, rely heavily on the latter’s AML competencies. If these standards don’t align, risks amplify.
To fortify defenses against these risks, both regulatory bodies and financial institutions must bolster their anti-money laundering mechanisms and ‘know your customer’ protocols. This implies implementing advanced due diligence, monitoring transactions rigorously, endorsing information exchanges, and complying with international norms like those of the FATF.
In summation, while correspondent banking is indispensable for global commerce and economic progression, it is not without its pitfalls. To protect the financial structure, collective efforts towards implementing stringent AML and KYC policies are crucial.
Moody’s Analytics offers a ray of hope in this challenging arena. Their state-of-the-art KYC solutions streamline customer onboarding and persistent risk monitoring, encapsulating various compliance facets. They aid clients in negating AML and CTF threats across an expansive range of countries and jurisdictions. If you’re looking to refine your AML and CTF strategy, they’re eager to assist.
Read the full story here.
Keep up with all the latest FinTech news here.
Copyright © 2023 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst