PROCESSING...

Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD

Ministerial Directives Related to Iran & LVCTRs

There have been a number of conversations floating around about FINTRAC Large Virtual Currency Transaction Reporting (LVCTR) obligations as it relates to transactions involving Iran, and potentially involving Iran, under the current Ministerial Directive (MD). While this is not a new requirement (LVCTRs were effective June 1, 2021 and the original MD became effective July 25, 2020), there has been clarification provided with regards to reporting, and what activities trigger which reports.

For background, Outlier Compliance Group wrote an article on what the Iran-related MD entails, so if you are not familiar with the requirements, we suggest starting there.

Existing Guidance

The existing MD guidance does not align with the information provided in a recent policy interpretation for reporting transactions involving Iran that generally are not otherwise reportable, such as a transaction below the reporting threshold. The current guidance says the following:

Any transaction involving the receipt of virtual currency (VC) for exchange to Iranian rial, or VC that is equivalent to an amount under the reporting threshold of $10,000 CAD must be reported using the LVCTR by:

    • Inserting the IR2020 code when using the LVCTR upload; or
    • Selecting IR2020 in the ‘Ministerial Directive’ field of the LVCTR.
    • Because the report is related to the MD, you must ensure that the information provided reflects a connection to Iran.

Recent Interpretation

On June 11, 2023, a policy interpretation was submitted to clarify FINTRAC’s expectations with regards to reporting VC transactions related to the Iran MD. A few specific scenarios were included to ensure an easily digestible response was provided. The portion below is the most noteworthy sections of the response from FINTRAC clarifying the expectation of reporting virtual currency transactions that are below the reporting threshold where there is a nexus to Iran:

To answer your question regarding other instances that could involve the receipt of VC originating from Iran in one or more transactions under the threshold, please refer to section 3) of the Ministerial Directive. It states that any transaction (originating from or bound for Iran) must be treated as a high-risk transaction for the purposes of subsection 9.6(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), and must be reported to FINTRAC. Where these transactions involve the receipt of VC but cannot be reported using an LVCTR, they must be reported using the Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) with the IR2020 code.  Only completed transactions can be reported through an STR if the only reason for reporting is that the transaction is originating from or bound for Iran. An attempted transaction should only be reported when you have reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction is related to the attempted commission of a money laundering or terrorist activity financing offence. 

Further to section 3(a) of the Ministerial Directive, you need to look at a variety of elements when determining whether a transaction originates from or is bound for Iran because the circumstances of each transaction are different. The exchange of VC for Iranian rial is not the only circumstance in which a VC transaction may fall under the Ministerial Directive. After you’ve considered the facts, contexts and indicators of a transaction and you determine it is subject to the Ministerial Directive, you must determine if the transaction(s) should be reported using the LVCTR or STR, as described above.

I’ve provided the reporting information for the scenarios you presented in your email:

    1. Virtual currency that originates from an identified virtual currency exchange in Iran.
      • Report the transaction in the STR with code IR2020.
    2. Virtual currency that originates from a wallet address identified as being in or from Iran.
      • When the conductor, beneficiary or third party address details list Iran as the country, and the transaction is not a VC exchange to Iranian rial, report the transaction in the STR with code IR2020.
    3. Travel rule information from the receiving client (or from a participant in the travel rule network) that sent the virtual currency from an address associated with an Iranian virtual currency exchange, or a person or entity in Iran that is not captured under the Ministerial Directive.
      • If a VC transaction has travel rule information that indicates it originates from or is bound for Iran and it does not meet the LVCTR criteria for the Ministerial Directive, the transaction must be reported using the STR with code IR2020.

So What Do I Need To Do?

What is important to understand in this clarification, is the obligation to report every transaction that has a nexus to Iran, such as originating from a VC exchange in Iran, and how that is to be reported. Where a transaction is not otherwise reportable to FINTRAC via an LVCTR, it must be reported using a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) and the MD indicator IR2020 must be selected (we also suggest including IR2020 in the opening of the narrative in Section G). Transactions that are not otherwise reportable to FINTRAC include VC exchange transactions below the reporting threshold, as referenced in the response from FINTRAC.

Moving Forward

In order to ensure you are compliant with the MD obligation, a thorough lookback to June 1, 2021 for all VC transactions below the reporting threshold, that may have had a nexus with Iran, needs to be performed. Should transactions that should have been reported be found, a Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Non Compliance (VSDONC) should be submitted to FINTRAC. For more information on VSDONCs and how to complete one, please see our blog post on the topic.

Need a Hand?

If you are looking for help completing a lookback or would like a second set of eyes on a VSDONC, please feel free to contact us.

Proposed 2023 AML Changes: Mortgage Lenders and Armoured Car Services

Background

February seems to be the month for proposed legislative changes.

On February 18, 2023, draft amendments to the regulations under the Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA), and a net-new draft regulation, were published in the Canada Gazette. If you’re the type that likes to read original legislative text, you can find it here. We (thanks Rodney) also created a redlined version of the regulations, with new content showing as tracked changes, which can be found here.

These changes are meant to renew and improve Canada’s anti-money laundering (AML) and Counter Terrorist Financing (CTF) regime, adapting to new money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing (TF) risk. One of the most significant changes, in our opinion, is the introduction of two new regulated entity types, mortgage lenders and armoured car companies.

Currently, mortgages issued by financial entities are captured under the PCMLTFA but these amendments would make all entities involved in the mortgage lending process (brokers responsible for mortgage origination, lenders responsible for underwriting the loan, and administrators responsible for servicing the loan) reporting entities. The intent here is to level the playing field between regulated and unregulated mortgage lenders, and to deter misuse of the sector for illicit activities.

While the activity of transportation is not currently supervised for AML purposes per se, armoured car carriers provide services largely to regulated entities. Given the flow of funds that is typically seen in this sector, reconciliation and identification of the origin of funds can sometimes be challenging, and allows funds to move with some degree of anonymity, which is an ML/TF vulnerability.

The draft regulations also introduce new requirements for correspondent banking relationships, and additional requirements related to the Money Services Business (MSB) registration. There are also some technical amendments related to existing reporting requirements and changes related to Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs).

Lastly, a new regulation would introduce a prescribed formula for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to assess the expenses it incurs in the administration of the PCMLTFA against reporting entities. Such models are seen from other regulators, such as the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC). Currently, FINTRAC is funded through appropriations.

In the following sections, we have summarized what we feel are the most important requirements to note.

Armoured Car Companies

The proposed changes would require a company that engages in “transporting currency or money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments” (except for cheques payable to a named person or entity) to be considered an MSB. As such, the following obligations will have to be met:

  • Development of a compliance program;
  • Maintaining an up-to-date MSB registration with FINTRAC;
  • Conducting compliance effectiveness reviews;
  • Reporting certain transactions;
  • Identifying customers;
  • Record keeping;
  • Risk ranking customers and business relationships;
  • Conducting transaction monitoring and list screening;
  • Conducting enhanced due diligence and transaction monitoring for high-risk customers and business relationships; and
  • Follow ministerial directives and transaction restrictions.

One record keeping obligation to note, which is new for armoured car companies, is the requirement to record the following information when transporting CAD 1,000 or more of cash or virtual currency, or CAD 3,000 or more in money orders or similar negotiable instruments:

  • The date and location of collection and delivery;
  • The type and amount of cash, virtual currency or negotiable instrument transported;
  • The name and address of the person or entity that made the request, the nature of their principal business/occupation and, in the case of an individual, their date of birth;
  • The name and address, if known, of each beneficiary;
  • The number of every account affected by the transport, the type of account, and the name of the account holder;
  • Every reference number that is connected to the transport, and has a function; equivalent to that of an account number; and
  • The method of remittance.

An additional requirement that will apply to armoured car companies is in relation to PEP determinations (existing PEP requirements for MSBs still apply). Specifically, a PEP determination is required whenever a person requests that the MSB transport more than CAD 100,000 in cash or virtual currency, or in an amount that is not declared.

Under the proposed regulations, there are some exemptions for reporting that are noteworthy. Large Cash and Large Virtual Currency reporting requirements will not apply where there is an agreement of transportation between:

  • The Bank of Canada and a person or entity in Canada;
  • Two financial entities;
  • Two places of business of the same person or entity; or
  • Canadian currency coins for purposes of delivery under the Royal Canadian Mint.

It is noteworthy, based on the definition, that there may be more than just armoured car companies that are captured under these new requirements. This will be clarified in guidance from FINTRAC that will follow publication of the legislation.

The requirements applicable to armoured car companies will come into force eight months after final publication in the Canada Gazette.

Mortgage Lending

The proposed regulations would require mortgage lenders, brokers, and administrators (mortgage participants) to put in place compliance regimes, similar to that of other regulated entities, which include the following:

  • Development of a compliance program;
  • Conducting compliance effectiveness reviews;
  • Reporting certain transactions;
  • Identifying customers;
  • Keeping records;
  • Risk ranking customers and business relationships;
  • Conducting transaction monitoring and list screening;
  • Conducting enhanced due diligence and transaction monitoring for high-risk customers and business relationships; and
  • Follow ministerial directives and transaction restrictions.

It is noteworthy, that many mortgage brokers already have existing voluntary AML compliance programs and already apply AML measures. This is in part due to various securities regulations and lending partners.

The requirements applicable to mortgage lending will come into force six months after final publication in the Canada Gazette.

Cost Recovery

As part of this round of regulatory changes, there is a net-new regulation, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada Assessment of Expenses Regulations. This regulation will allow FINTRAC to pass on expenses, to reporting entities, that it incurs in the administration of the PCMLTFA. Only the following prescribed entity types are affected by this:

  • Banks and authorized foreign banks;
  • Life insurance companies;
  • Trust and loan corporations; and
  • Every entity that made more than 500 threshold reports during the previous fiscal year.

The regulations provide a formula that FINTRAC would use to calculate the assessment amounts payable by reporting entities on the basis of their annual asset value, and the volume of all threshold transaction reports submitted. For clarity, threshold transaction reports include Large Cash Transaction Reports (LCTRs), Large Virtual Currency Transaction Reports (LVCTRs), Electronic Funds Transfer Reports (EFTRs), and Casino Disbursement Reports (CDRs).

The requirement would come into force on April 1, 2024. This means FINTRAC would commence recovering costs from the 2024-2025 fiscal year and forward.

Other Changes

Enhancing MSB registration

Under the proposed amendments, as part of MSB registration, MSBs would now need to include the telephone numbers and email addresses of its president, directors and every person who owns or controls 20% or more of the MSB. This is in addition to current required information. Additionally, the number of the MSB’s agents, mandataries and branches in each country will be added (currently, only those within Canada are required).

This requirement will come into force twelve months after final publication in the Canada Gazette.

Streamlining requirements for sending AMPs

Under the proposed amendments, FINTRAC would be allowed to serve a reporting entity solely by electronic means when issuing an AMP. Currently, FINTRAC would also have to send an additional copy by registered mail.

This requirement would come into force on registration.

What Next?

There is a 30 day comment period (ending March 20, 2023) for the proposed regulations. It is strongly recommended that industry, and potentially impacted companies, review carefully and provide feedback. Comments can be submitted online via the commenting feature after each section of the proposed changes, or via email directly to Julien Brazeau, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance, 90 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G5.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions related to the proposed changes, or need help starting to plan, you can get in touch using the online form on our website, by emailing us directly at info@outliercanada.com, or by calling us toll-free at 1-844-919-1623.

New Illegal Wildlife Trade Indicators

FINTRAC has published a new Operational Alert on the Illegal Wildlife Trade.

The alert includes diagrams of known fund flows, both into and out of Canada (though the latter is most common). Three categories of indicators are included:

  • General wildlife trade,
  • Import into Canada, and
  • Export from Canada.

As a Compliance Officer, it’s important to think through where these indicators might be visible to you and your team. For instance, if you are offering remittance or payment services, and there is an available memo or purpose of payment field, there are several keywords in the indicators that should be added to your monitoring parameters (if they haven’t been already).

All Canadian reporting entities must use this information to:

  • Update the indicators in training materials,
  • Update the indicators in policies and procedures, and
  • Update transaction monitoring mechanisms (where applicable) to detect relevant indicators.

Of course, if you require assistance, Outlier Compliance is here to help. Please feel free to contact us.

Suspicious Transaction Reporting Updates

FINTRAC has published updated resources related to upcoming changes to suspicious transaction reports (STRs) on its Draft Documents page. This includes updated draft guidance on STRs, expected to come into force in September 2023.

While the updated forms are not yet in use, it is important that you communicate these changes to your information technology (IT) teams and service providers. The documentation published this week includes JSON schemas and API endpoints.

For reporting entities that complete STR reporting manually through FINTRAC’s online reporting portal, it is also important to familiarize yourself with updated structured reporting fields, including:

  • URL,
  • Type of device used,
  • Username,
  • Device identifier number,
  • Internet protocol address, and
  • Date and time in which online session request was made.

These can be reviewed in the draft STR form.

Of course, if you require assistance, Outlier Compliance is here to help, please contact us.

New Terrorist Financing Indicators

FINTRAC Registration

FINTRAC has published updated indicators related to terrorist activity financing.

These are subdivided into three broad types of violent extremism:

  • religiously motivated violent extremism (RMVE),
  • politically motivated violent extremism (PMVE), and
  • ideologically motivated violent extremism (IMVE).

Each subtype has distinct characteristics and indicators. While it can be tempting to think that these types of things don’t happen here, unfortunately, they can and do happen here in Canada. As a Compliance Officer, it’s important to think through where these indicators might be visible to you and your team.

All Canadian reporting entities must use this information to:

  • Update the indicators in training materials,
  • Update the indicators in policies and procedures, and
  • Update transaction monitoring mechanisms (where applicable) to detect relevant indicators.

Of course, if you require assistance, Outlier Compliance is here to help, please contact us

First AML Compliance Effectiveness Review Timing

As a company that gets to work with a lot of startups, and existing companies entering the Canadian market, we get to help folks understand the regulatory landscape in Canada. One of the required elements of a Canadian compliance program is an AML Compliance Effectiveness Review. These reviews must be completed every two years at a minimum. You can think of it like an audit, but for compliance.

The purpose of an effectiveness review is to determine whether your AML compliance program has gaps or weaknesses that may prevent your business from effectively preventing, detecting and deterring money laundering and terrorist financing. Recently, we have seen an increased focus on Effectiveness Reviews during FINTRAC examinations. Specifically, on whether the review really tested the effectiveness of the compliance program as a whole (not just what you say you’re doing, but also what you’re actually doing). This has led to FINTRAC examiners requesting the working papers for completed effectiveness reviews where the report did not clearly describe how the effectiveness was tested and assessed. This is the main reason Outlier has started providing our working papers with the final report. This also provides a pretty good reference point for making sure you are meeting your regulatory expectations.

First Time for Everything

In previous engagements, Outlier has operated on the theory that the clock for when your first review was due stemmed from the MSB’s FINTRAC registration date. However, we were incorrect. It wasn’t until a recent conversation where the registration date preceded any customer transactions by six months, that really spurred on an official clarification from the regulator. The trigger for the 2-year clock to start ticking is not registration but “a registered MSB is required to create a compliance program once it engages in one or more of the MSB-related activities.” This means that the clock starts ticking after the MSB has conducted their first transaction.

Here is a PDF version of the policy interpretation we received from FINTRAC that you can keep for your records.

Potential Corrections

If we have completed a review for you in the past that has a commencement date prior to your first customer transaction, please feel free to reach out so we can amend your report to the proper date.

Upcoming Effectiveness Reviews

While this article talks about your first review, you must also be sure to initiate all subsequent reviews within 2 years of the start date of your previous review. Please note that this is based on the previous commencement date, not the date of completion or issuance of the final report.

Need a Hand?

If you are looking for an idea of pricing for an upcoming review or have questions about a review that is currently underway, please feel free to contact us.

Effectiveness Reviews for Dealers in Virtual Currency

Effective June 1, 2020, dealers in Virtual Currency activities were considered as Money Services Businesses (MSBs) and as such, must comply with MSB obligations under amendments made to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA). One obligation is to have an AML effectiveness review at least once every two years. MSBs must start their effectiveness review no later than two years from the start of their previous review or in the case of dealers in Virtual Currency, no later than June 1, 2022, the date they were considered to be MSBs under law.

Such reviews must test your compliance program and effectiveness of your operations. Our reviews follow a similar format to examinations conducted by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), which you can read more about in a previous Blog Post.

We’re Here To Help

If you have not yet engaged or commenced your review, there are still a couple of weeks to be compliant. If you would like to engage Outlier to conduct your AML Compliance Effectiveness Review or have questions regarding this obligation, please get in touch.

Amendments To The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations – 2022

Background

On April 27, 2022 amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette. To make reading these changes a little easier, we (thanks Rodney) have created a redlined version of the regulations, with new content showing as tracked changes, which can be found here.

The Regulatory Impact Statement for these changes state the following:

Crowdfunding platforms and some payment service providers are not currently covered by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (the Act) and therefore have no money laundering and terrorist financing obligations under federal statute. This lack of oversight presents a serious and immediate risk to the security of Canadians and to the Canadian economy. This risk was highlighted in early 2022, when illegal blockades took place across Canada that were financed, in part, through crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers. Allowing these gaps to continue represents a risk to the integrity and stability of the financial sector and the broader economy, as well as a reputational risk for Canada.

Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations, and consequential amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations, will help prevent the financing of illegal activities through these types of financial services.

What’s Changed?

The changes are substantial and sudden. They will affect many companies that have not been previously under the purview of AML regulation in Canada. These changes are effective immediately and there is no comment period, which is not the norm for such changes.

To help digest these changes, we have summarized what we feel are the most important changes below:

The definition for an electronic funds transfer has been removed and the corresponding section within the body of the regulations was amended. Previous exemptions related to remitting or transmitting from one person or entity to another by Credit or Debit Card, or Prepaid Payment Product if the beneficiary has an agreement with the payment service provider that permits payment for the provision of goods and services, has been revoked for money services businesses, which as we mentioned now includes Payment Service Providers.

The definitions section was amended by adding the following:

  • crowdfunding platform means a website or an application or other software that is used to raise funds or virtual currency through donations. (plateforme de sociofinancement)
  • crowdfunding platform services means the provision and maintenance of a crowdfunding platform for use by other persons or entities to raise funds or virtual currency for themselves or for persons or entities specified by them.

With these changes, crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers will now be subject to existing money services businesses requirements. These obligations include:

  • Registration with FINTRAC;
  • Developing a compliance program;
  • Customer identification and due diligence;
  • Transaction monitoring and customer risk scoring;
  • Reporting certain transactions to regulators and government agencies;
  • Complying with Ministerial Directives; and
  • Keeping records.

Specific to record keeping, crowdfunding platforms that provide services to persons or entities in Canada where a person donates an amount of CAD 1,000 or more in funds or virtual currency will need to:

(a) keep an information record in respect of the person or entity to which they provide those services;

(b) keep a record of the purpose for which the funds or virtual currency are being raised; and

(c) if the person or entity for which the funds or virtual currency are being raised is different from the person or entity referred to in paragraph (a),

      1. keep a record of their name, and
      2. take reasonable measures to obtain their address, the nature of their principal business or their occupation and, in the case of a person, their date of birth, and keep a record of the information obtained.

What Next?

Due to these changes, FINTRAC will need to revise its interpretation of existing requirements to include crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers. There is no set date for when we can expect guidance from FINTRAC. Additionally, various FINTRAC policy interpretations will no longer be able to be relied upon (i.e. policy interpretations related to merchant services as well as payment processing for utility bills, mortgage and rent, payroll, and tuition being exempt from AML obligations). The hope is FINTRAC will issue new policy interpretations, but for now the industry is left with many questions.

We’re Here To Help

If you would like assistance in understanding what these changes mean to your business, or if you need help in creating or updating your compliance program and processes, please get in touch.

Outlier Solutions Inc. Offering Compliance Services to the Metaverse in Decentraland

February 23, 2022 Toronto — Outlier Solutions Inc. doing business as Outlier Compliance Group, a consultancy specializing in compliance solutions for reporting entities ranging from banks to dealers in virtual currencies (like bitcoin) to real estate firms, is one of the first to offer compliance services in the metaverse. Outlier will be joining as one of the professional service providers setting up shop in conjunction with Grinhaus Law Firm, a leading Canadian law firm in Blockchain regulatory advisory, and DGM Financial Group, a prominent Trust and corporate services office which helps structure crypto businesses internationally, in Decentraland, to service clients globally and through the metaverse.

Visitors to Decentraland will now be able to visit Outlier’s office, and book meetings with one of the team members. Visitors can discuss their Canadian compliance needs on topics such as Canadian anti-money laundering (AML), counter terrorist financing (CTF), privacy, and regulatory compliance management. Virtual spaces include traditional offices and a fountain (and of course, meetings can also be requested in person and via more traditional virtual meeting software). The Decentraland office is located at -39, 121, in the same neighbourhood as Decentraland University.

“The world, actual and virtual, is evolving rapidly” said Outlier’s Founder and CEO, Amber D. Scott. “It’s important to understand what shape that evolution is taking, and no better way to learn than to be involved directly.” She adds, “It just makes sense that in order to be good advisors to companies operating in the metaverse, we would be there too.”

Scott’s avatar in Decentraland checks out the new virtual office space.

Founder of Grinhaus Law Firm, Aaron Grinhaus, stated, “we are pleased to welcome Outlier Solutions Inc. and complement our line up of professional services to help people and businesses navigate the ‘gray areas’ and legitimize the existence of the metaverse.”

Decentraland, with its 800,000+ residents and $54B in transactions, is also home to a wide array of companies and institutions from academia to crypto companies to fashion. This represents an opportunity to strategically grow Outlier’s presence as well as participate in the booming growth and creation in the metaverse.

Please direct media inquiries to decentraland@outliercanada.com.

About Outlier Solutions Inc.
Outlier Solutions Inc. dba Outlier Compliance Group is a Canadian consulting firm, founded in August of 2013, which is focused on developing compliance solutions for reporting entities. Outlier’s areas of expertise include anti-money laundering (AML), counter terrorist financing (CTF), privacy, and regulatory compliance.

For further information please visit https://www.outliercanada.com

About Grinhaus Law Firm
Grinhaus Law Firm was established in 2012 and is a business, tax and regulatory focused firm with a niche expertise in Blockchain and Smart Contract law.

For further information please visit https://grinhauslaw.ca

About DGM Financial Group
DGM Financial Group is a global financial services firm that provides Trust Administration, Corporate Services, Management Services to insurance and non-insurance companies, Family Office, Director Services, and is a Listing Sponsor on the Barbados Stock Exchange.

For further information please visit https://dgmfinancialgroup.com/

About Decentraland
Decentraland is the first fully decentralized virtual world. Powered by DAO, which owns the most important smart contracts and assets of Decentraland. Decentraland is a software running on Ethereum that seeks to incentivize a global network of users to operate a shared virtual world. Decentraland users can buy and sell digital real estate, while exploring, interacting and playing games within this virtual world.

For further information please visit https://decentraland.org

Proliferation Financing

 

 

 

 

What is it, and why should AML compliance professionals be paying attention?

If you’ve looked at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)’s recommendations recently, you’ve no doubt noticed that there are now three big topics on the covering page:

  • Money laundering,
  • Terrorist financing, and
  • Proliferation.

The last of these has received considerably less attention until recently, and in many cases, it may not be explicitly included in either jurisdiction-specific legislation or compliance programs. While some elements of proliferation are generally included (for instance, it is rare to see a compliance program that does not address sanctions-related list screening), there is often little if any consideration given to risks such as sanctions evasion or the non-implementation of sanctions.

According to the FATF, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation refers to the manufacture, acquisition, possession, development, export, trans-shipment, brokering, transport, transfer, stockpiling or use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery and related materials (including both dual-use technologies and dual use goods used for non-legitimate purposes). The financing of proliferation refers to the risk of raising, moving, or making available funds, other assets or other economic resources, or financing, in whole or in part, to persons or entities for purposes of WMD proliferation, including the proliferation of their means of delivery or related materials (including both dual-use technologies and dual-use goods for non-legitimate purposes). There are targeted financial sanctions intended to prevent specific jurisdictions, organizations, and persons from participating in any proliferation-related activities.

In Canada, reporting entities have strict obligations to comply with sanctions requirements.

Similarly, terrorists and terrorist groups are often subject to financial sanctions and prohibitions. All accounts and transactions are scanned against listed persons and entities. In the case that we have property (including money and investments) in our possession that belongs to a listed person or entity, it must be frozen and reported immediately.

Recommendation 1 requires countries and private sector entities to identify, assess, and understand “proliferation financing risks”. In the context of Recommendation 1, “proliferation financing risk” refers strictly and only to the potential breach, non-implementation or evasion of the targeted financial obligations referred to in Recommendation 7. These R.7 obligations apply to two country-specific regimes for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran, require countries to freeze without delay the funds or other assets of, and to ensure that no funds and other assets are made available, directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of (a) any person or entity designated by the United Nations (UN), (b) persons and entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, (c) those owned or controlled by them. The full text of Recommendations 1 and 7 is set out at Annex A.

Canadian reporting entities will be familiar with Ministerial Directives related to North Korea and Iran that impose additional requirements, as well as providing indicators of activity related to these jurisdictions. While we may not be used to thinking about these requirements as being controls related to proliferation financing risk, this is exactly what they are. We may also fail to consider how they fit into our overall compliance regimes.

Proliferation Financing Trends and Typologies

It is not enough to simply say that your business does not deal with these jurisdictions directly. In many cases, funds are not actually repatriated to these jurisdictions but are held in other countries. For instance, identified state-sponsored North Korean hacking groups have moved stolen funds and virtual currencies through the Philippines, Macau, and China. In addition, actors intending to circumvent sanctions are known to be relatively proficient in using false and manufactured identities, as well as well as organizational structures intended to obfuscate true beneficial ownership. In the FATF’s webinar on proliferation financing, the global watchdog noted that proliferation financing may be one of the most challenging threats to detect in action, due to its complex nature.

Helpful Resources

Late in 2021, the FATF conducted an excellent webinar on proliferation financing risk assessment and mitigation, which has now been posted publicly. This presentation includes an excellent high-level overview, as well as detailed discussions of the trends and typologies that are relevant today.

It can be useful to review the aspects of the FATF’s recommendations that refer to proliferation.

There is additional guidance from the FATF on proliferation financing risk assessment and mitigation. This is a detailed document focused entirely on proliferation financing, and the FATF’s expectations.

The UK has conducted a national level assessment of proliferation financing risk. This includes a number of relevant case studies and typologies. If you want the sense of it, but are short on time, our friend Dev Odedra has published a summary.

Manchester CF has launched a proliferation financing training module as part of the Financial Intelligence Specialist (FIS) designation, offered in conjunction with the University of Newhaven.

Need a Hand?

If you want to get ahead of the curve by having a conversation about proliferation financing risk and potential impacts to your compliance program, please contact us.

Return to Blog Listing