MAS recently published this report < https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS-Media-Library/publications/monographs-or-information-paper/IMD/2022/Strengthening-AML-CFT-Name-Screening-Practices.pdf > which hightlights and summarizes their findings on namescreening practises of selected FIs in Singapore.
The findings are not dramatic, good practises do exist
and many FIs have SOPs in place, but there seems to be a lot of room for improvement
as well. The report mentions an ‘uneven robustness’ of the screening framework
and processes, indicating that some FIs mastered the discipline but (many)
others are struggling with namescreening.
Two points from
the report are worth mentioning:
1.
Several
financial institutions are reported to lack senior management oversight
2.
Many
financial institutions rely heavily on their system vendors with regards to
settings, parameters and interpretation of screening results.
Most of
these observations coincide with what we see in our daily practise working with
our clients across the globe. There’s a big difference though….
In our
practise we always look at FEC compliance from 3 angles: good, cheap and fast. We
help our clients meet the regulations and support them to ensure all compliance
processes are done to the agreed quality levels as stipulated by MAS and other
regulators.
In
addition though, we also look at the other 2 dimensions: costs and speed. Where
speed usually relates (in)directly to customer impact. Doing it right can come
at a cost and might impact customers. These are not of primary interest to regulators
but they should be for financial institutions.
So if you
or your organization struggles with name screening or if you just want a high
level risk assessment, some assurance or a thorough review, don’t hesitate to contact
us.
Rolf van
der Pol
