Home   Browse contents   View updates   Search  
     Quick search
Go
   

Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA): Contents

Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA)
Laws
Rulebook Modules
Anti-Money Laundering, Counter-Terrorist Financing and Sanctions Module (AML) [VER16/07-19]
Sourcebook Modules
Consultation Papers
Policy Statements
DFSA Codes of Practice
Amendments to Legislation
Media Releases
Notices
Financial Markets Tribunal
Archive

BackText onlyPrint

You need the Flash plugin.

Download Macromedia Flash Player



  • AML 13.2 Internal Reporting Requirements

    • AML 13.2.1

      A Relevant PersonG must establish and maintain policies, procedures, systems and controls in order to monitor and detect suspicious activity or transactions in relation to potential money laundering or terrorist financing.

      Derived from RM117/2013 [VER9/07-13]

    • AML 13.2.2

      A Relevant PersonG must have policies, procedures, systems and controls to ensure that whenever any EmployeeG , acting in the ordinary course of his employment, either:

      (a) knows;
      (b) suspects; or
      (c) has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting;

      that a person is engaged in or attempting money laundering or terrorist financing, that EmployeeG promptly notifies the Relevant Person'sG MLROG and provides the MLROG with all relevant details.

      Derived from RM117/2013 [VER9/07-13]

      • AML 13.2.2 Guidance

        1. Circumstances that might give rise to suspicion or reasonable grounds for suspicion include:
        a. Transactions which have no apparent purpose, which make no obvious economic sense, or which are designed or structured to avoid detection;
        b. Transactions requested by a person without reasonable explanation, which are out of the ordinary range of services normally requested or are outside the experience of a Relevant PersonG in relation to a particular customer;
        c. where the size or pattern of transactions, without reasonable explanation, is out of line with any pattern that has previously emerged or are deliberately structured to avoid detection;
        d. where a customer refuses to provide the information requested without reasonable explanation;
        e. where a customer who has just entered into a business relationship uses the relationship for a single transaction or for only a very short period of time;
        f. an extensive use of offshore accounts, companies or structures in circumstances where the customer's economic needs do not support such requirements;
        g. unnecessary routing of funds through third party accounts; or
        h. unusual transactions without an apparently profitable motive.
        2. The requirement for EmployeesG to notify the Relevant Person'sG MLROG should include situations when no business relationship was developed because the circumstances were suspicious.
        3. A Relevant PersonG may allow its EmployeesG to consult with their line managers before sending a report to the MLROG . The DFSAG would expect that such consultation does not prevent making a report whenever an EmployeeG has stated that he has knowledge, suspicion or reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that a person may be involved in money laundering. Whether or not an EmployeeG consults with his line manager or other EmployeesG , the responsibility remains with the EmployeeG to decide for himself whether a notification to the MLROG should be made.
        4. An EmployeeG , including the MLROG , who considers that a person is engaged in or engaging in activity that he knows or suspects to be suspicious would not be expected to know the exact nature of the criminal offence or that the particular funds were definitely those arising from the crime of money laundering or terrorist financing.
        5. CDDG measures form the basis for recognising suspicious activity. Sufficient guidance must therefore be given to the Relevant Person'sG EmployeesG to enable them to form a suspicion or to recognise when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering or terrorist financing is taking place. This should involve training that will enable relevant EmployeesG to seek and assess the information that is required for them to judge whether a person is involved in suspicious activity related to money laundering or terrorist financing.
        6. A transaction that appears unusual is not necessarily suspicious. Even customers with a stable and predictable transaction profile will have periodic transactions that are unusual for them. Many customers will, for perfectly good reasons, have an erratic pattern of transactions or account activity. So the unusual is, in the first instance, only a basis for further inquiry, which may in turn require judgement as to whether it is suspicious. A transaction or activity may not be suspicious at the time, but if suspicions are raised later, an obligation to report then arises.
        7. Effective CDDG measures may provide the basis for recognising unusual and suspicious activity. Where there is a customer relationship, suspicious activity will often be one that is inconsistent with a customer's known legitimate activity, or with the normal business activities for that type of account or customer. Therefore, the key to recognising 'suspicious activity' is knowing enough about the customer and the customer's normal expected activities to recognise when their activity is abnormal.
        8. A Relevant PersonG may consider implementing policies and procedures whereby disciplinary action is taken against an EmployeeG who fails to notify the Relevant Person'sG MLROG .
        Derived from RM117/2013 [VER9/07-13]
        [Amended] RM196/2016 (Made 7th December 2016). [VER13/02-17]