BCSC Targets Yet Another Cryptocurrency Exchange

BCSC Targets Yet Another Cryptocurrency Exchange

BCSC Targets Yet Another Cryptocurrency Exchange

British Columbia Securities Commission adds Cryptec.io to the provincial Investment Caution List

What Happened?

May 27, 2020: Cryptec, a cryptocurrency trading platform incorporated in the Commonwealth of Dominica, has been providing services to residents in the province of British Columbia, without being registered with the local securities regulator​.

According to the BCSC, Cryptec may be considered an exchange under section 25 of the Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418 (the Act), and has not registered as a dealer under section 34 of the Act. Cryptec’s activities are regulated by Canadian legislation, the company has subsequently been added to the IOSCO warnings list.

Source: https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Enforcement/Investment_Caution_List/Cryptec/

Who Is Impacted?

Online financial services providers that have yet to obtain proper licensing, as well as entities engaged in a business relationship with Cryptec.

Why This Matters?

Due to its failure to comply with British Columbia securities regulations, Cryptec is now listed on international regulatory watch lists such as IOSCO and faces increased scrutiny in the months and years ahead.

This precedent provides clear guidance on when regulators determine a financial platform is required to be registered in their jurisdiction–as soon as you serve your first user, whether or not you have a physical operation in the region. Ignoring this can lead to similar or even more severe actions from regulators such as the BCSC.

What’s Next?

Businesses providing financial services online must ensure they have obtained the proper licensing and registration for every jurisdiction in which they intend to receive new users, and that they follow the regulations in the jurisdictions where those users are domiciled.

Board members and management teams should also ensure that their KYC systems are able to identify when they are engaging with users outside the jurisdictions where they are permitted to operate.

Compliance teams who identify users outside their licensed jurisdictions should be equipped to know how to escalate these instances to management in order to properly consult with local legal and regulatory advisors.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms
Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms

Know Your Business (KYB) compliance is essential for law firms to verify the legitimacy of their business clients, mitigate risks, and adhere to regulatory requirements. This article explores the best practices and strategies for...

Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring
Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) monitoring is crucial for detecting and preventing financial crimes in real-time. Edge computing plays a vital role in enhancing real-time AML monitoring by providing improved data processing speed,...

Client Suitability in Wealth Management for Singapore Firms

Client Suitability in Wealth Management for Singapore Firms

Client Suitability in Wealth Management for Singapore Firms

Compliance expert Rolf Haudenschild shares how financial advisors can provide tailored portfolio recommendations to clients based on individual suitability factors

What is client suitability​?

Client suitability is having a reasonable basis for recommendations of financial products to a specific client. A financial advisor must understand the financial situation of the specific client as well as his risk appetite and sophistication when creating a portfolio and recommending individual investments to their client.

What types of firms should pay attention to this?

Financial advisors and exempt financial advisors (i.e. other financial institutions that are permitted to provide financial advice and certain other entities) are required to have a reasonable basis when making a recommendation with respect to any investment product. This obligation is, however, restricted to dealings with retail clients. For accredited investors (such as high-net-worth individuals and their wealth management structures) and institutional investors (such as governments and financial institutions), an exemption applies. However, inspections by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) found that private banks follow the Private Banking Code of Conduct which calls for similar suitability.

Why does this matter?

The suitability assessmentincluding the customer account review and the customer knowledge assessment, where requiredare mandatory when providing financial advice to retail investors. In contrast, the Private Banking Code of Conduct is not mandatory. Nonetheless, MAS confirmed in their information paper that they expect private banks to apply the guidance of the Private Banking Code of Conduct with regards to suitability. This will also extend to other financial institutions active in financial advisory to high-net-worth individuals.

Does this current landscape create new opportunities? If so, what might they be?

The financial industry has been expecting stronger scrutiny by MAS regarding suitability for a while. Nonetheless, many financial institutions still work on a commission-based model, where they get paid a kick-back on fees from product providers. This model incentivizes commissions over suitability. Accordingly, MAS found instances in their inspections where relationship managers described client risk assessments as paper exercises, and clients were subsequently pushed towards higher risk profiles that allow for higher risk investment products that generally pay a higher commission.

Increased attention to suitability will accelerate the change from such commission-based remuneration to payment for advice. When paid for advice irrespective of commission, the relationship manager forges his success on the relationship with the client, which will increase or decrease based on the quality of the advice and how well the advice suits the specific client.

What are the key risks and challenges? What should stakeholders be looking out for?

While more advanced financial institutions continue to develop their client risk profiles to capture information determining suitability from various and sophisticated angles (e.g. behavioral finance), other financial institutions still require work to consistently implement true client risk profiling, selection of suitable investment products, and pre- and post-trade controls.

With its information paper, MAS has highlighted that it will increase its focus on suitability. Respective inspections may be expected. The current focus on the management of the coronavirus and its impacts in the financial sector certainly distract from this initiative, but it is likely postponed rather than canceled.

How does this impact compliance teams, and what can they do to stay ahead of the game?

Financial institutions providing financial advice and managing assets on a discretionary basis should ensure their implementation of client risk profiles and suitable advice and asset management, as well as pre- and post-trade controls. The MAS information paper is a reminder of enforcement action ahead. Compliance departments and/or internal audit teams should ascertain the proper and consistent implementation. Where necessary, processes for the determination and application of suitability need to be strengthened and adequate controls implemented.

What can management teams or boards of directors do to stay ahead of the game?

Even beyond ensuring this practical implementation of suitability, the board of directors and senior management should obtain reports to evaluate the execution of these measures and deliberate on enhancements as appropriate. Internal audit can provide valuable, independent assurance of compliance.

Boards and senior management must ensure and foster a culture where financial advice and asset management is focused on the interests of the client. This must go beyond the publication of respective policies and procedures. It requires board and senior management to walk the talk and forgo short term profits for the benefit of long-term and mutually beneficial relationships safeguarding the interest of their clients. Moreover, regulators all over the world, including Singapore, have indicated an increasing regulatory focus on the culture in financial institutions.

What can service providers do to help their clients?

Fortunately, suitability can be facilitated by technology these days, and thus the burden for relationship managers and control functions, and ultimately even board and senior management, is lightened. Technologies can facilitate the collection of data as well as the assessment of suitability to assist the relationship manager in their work to provide best fitting solutions to the client. At the same time, technologies can be leveraged for controls to ensure proper conduct and to record the audit trail for this. Currently, grants for the implementation of technologies provide an additional incentive for the use of these technologies.

Nonetheless, it will ultimately always be the humans that give the edge, be it by creating company culture, bringing that personal touch to the relationship, or analyzing and enhancing the systems. Let’s get to work to secure our financial services the long-term path to success by ensuring true suitability for our clients.

Author ROLF HAUDENSCHILD

Rolf Haudenschild is the co-founder and Head of Regulatory & Risk Services at his compliance consultancy, Ingenia Consultants. A seasoned compliance professional, he leads a team of 10 experts providing proficient, practical support to clients. He started his career in Group Legal Services at UBS AG in Switzerland while working in compliance. Rolf previously worked with the Swiss financial regulator FINMA (originally Swiss Federal Banking Commission) in their Legal Department on enforcement and drafting of policies.

He served a short stint in compliance at Bank of Singapore before setting up his compliance consultancy and is currently a member of the RegTech Sub-committee of the Singapore Fintech Association. He holds a Masters in Law from the University of Berne (Switzerland) and a Masters in International Financial Law from King’s College London (United Kingdom).

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms
Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms

Know Your Business (KYB) compliance is essential for law firms to verify the legitimacy of their business clients, mitigate risks, and adhere to regulatory requirements. This article explores the best practices and strategies for...

Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring
Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) monitoring is crucial for detecting and preventing financial crimes in real-time. Edge computing plays a vital role in enhancing real-time AML monitoring by providing improved data processing speed,...

SFC Reprimands and Fines Southwest Securities in Hong Kong for AML Breach

SFC Reprimands and Fines Southwest Securities in Hong Kong for AML Breach

SFC Reprimands and Fines Southwest Securities in Hong Kong for AML Breach

HK’s Securities and Futures Commission reprimands and fines Southwest Securities Brokerage Ltd US$5 million for breaches of anti-money laundering regulatory requirements

What Happened?

May 18, 2020: The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has determined that Southwest Securities (HK) Brokerage Limited (SSBL) failed to comply with their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regulatory obligations in 2016.

Investigators at the SFC uncovered that, between January and December 2016, SSBL failed to identify 164 out of 184 third-party deposits totaling USD $110.1 million for its clients.

SSBL failed to demonstrate that they had the necessary systems, policies, and procedures in place to review the sources of funds deposited into the bank’s sub-accounts that SSBL was responsible for maintaining.

As a result, the SFC is ordering SSBL to pay a total of USD $5 million in fines.

Source: https://www.sfc.hk/edistributionWeb/gateway/EN/news-and-announcements/news/doc?refNo=20PR45

Who Is Impacted?

Individual and corporate clients of SSBL.

Any financial services provider offering brokerage or investment services that fail to implement proper AML/CTF internal procedures and reporting.

Why This Matters?

SSBL’s clients were put at risk precisely 164 times due to staff failure to verify the transactions (as outlined in the SFC’s 2016 review).

The SFC determined that SSBL’s staff did not have a clear, consistent understanding of their roles and responsibilities in both the monitoring and identification of suspicious transactions.

SSBL failed to diligently supervise and provide sufficient guidance to its staff in order to properly enable them to even recognize indicators of potential money laundering or terrorist financing activity or consider a plan of action to mitigate the risks.

Specifically, the SFC found that SSBL was guilty of:

  • Inadequate and ineffective policies and procedures that increased the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing associated with SSBL’s handling of third-party deposits;
  • Failure to establish proper internal systems and controls to monitor SSBL clients’ activities, as well as to detect and report any suspicious transactions identified to the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (JFIU) in a timely manner.

What’s Next?

In making its decision against SSBL, the SFC took into consideration that:

  • SSBL has since taken remedial steps to enhance its AML/CFT policies and procedures; and
  • SSBL otherwise has a clean disciplinary record with the SFC.

While these factors will help SSBL to recover from the regulatory action filed against them, they’ll likely be under scrutiny from financial providers, regulators, and investors worldwide for some time to come.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms
Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms

Know Your Business (KYB) compliance is essential for law firms to verify the legitimacy of their business clients, mitigate risks, and adhere to regulatory requirements. This article explores the best practices and strategies for...

Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring
Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) monitoring is crucial for detecting and preventing financial crimes in real-time. Edge computing plays a vital role in enhancing real-time AML monitoring by providing improved data processing speed,...

BCSC Targets Yet Another Cryptocurrency Exchange

BCSC targets EU virtual asset platform i-Coin

BCSC targets EU virtual asset platform i-Coin

The British Columbia Securities Commission issues regulatory warning against i-Coin, a European cryptocurrency trading platform

What Happened?

April 29, 2020: Estonia-based cryptocurrency trading platform i-Coin was found to have accepted funds from a British Columbia resident without being recognized as an exchange or registered as a dealer in B.C. According to Canadian legislation, i-Coin’s activities were regulated and the firm has been added to the IOSCO warnings list.

Source: https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Enforcement/Investment_Caution_List/i-Coin/

Who Is Impacted?

Cryptocurrency trading platforms and virtual asset service providers (VASPs) serving Canadian residents.

Why This Matters?

Many VASPs continue to operate on a global basis, without securing the required licenses or implementing the required KYC and AML compliance systems of the jurisdictions in which they accept users. This enforcement measure signals the importance for businesses to properly secure licensing in every jurisdiction they will accepting users.

What’s Next?

By adding i-Coin to the Investment Caution List, the BCSC has sent a clear message that these practices–although common in the cryptocurrency and fintech industries–are unlawful practices and can result in public enforcement.

VASPs who serve any Canadian user should seek legal and compliance advice from local experts to ensure they have the appropriate license for every jurisdiction in Canada.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms
Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms

Know Your Business (KYB) compliance is essential for law firms to verify the legitimacy of their business clients, mitigate risks, and adhere to regulatory requirements. This article explores the best practices and strategies for...

Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring
Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) monitoring is crucial for detecting and preventing financial crimes in real-time. Edge computing plays a vital role in enhancing real-time AML monitoring by providing improved data processing speed,...

BCSC Targets Yet Another Cryptocurrency Exchange

IIROC Imposes $250,000 Fine on Laurentian Bank Securities Inc.

IIROC Imposes $250,000 Fine on Laurentian Bank Securities Inc.

The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada fines Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. US$250,000 for not using a transaction monitoring system

What Happened?

April 16, 2020: Laurentian Bank Securities Inc.–a regulated investment dealer under the jurisdiction of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC)–was charged with failing to implement and maintain an adequate trading supervision system, which resulted in the organization failing to comply with AML obligations.

In a hearing that took place on April 24, 2020, the IIROC Hearing Panel accepted a settlement agreement, according to which Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. agreed to pay US$250,000 in fines.

Source: https://www.iiroc.ca/Documents/2020/227d22f8-bca1-49f9-8161-157d63ea9ffd_en.pdf

Who Is Impacted?

Businesses that facilitate the trading or exchange of regulated assets–including equities, debt, derivatives, and cryptocurrencies.

Why This Matters?

Failing to have a transaction monitoring system in place creates the risk of money laundering going unnoticed within your business.

Transaction monitoring is a requirement that, when overlooked, will result in staggering fines, sanctions, and damage to the integrity of your brand’s reputation.

What’s Next?

IIROC’s Trading Conduct Compliance department (TCC) is tasked with regularly examining and testing their participant’s transaction monitoring systems to identify any problems or concerns.

Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. will be required to address these concerns and to correct the deficiencies. Going forward, the firm can expect to face increased scrutiny and reputation damage and will continue to appear in AML screening for Adverse Media and Watchlists for years to come.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms
Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms

Know Your Business (KYB) compliance is essential for law firms to verify the legitimacy of their business clients, mitigate risks, and adhere to regulatory requirements. This article explores the best practices and strategies for...

Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring
Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) monitoring is crucial for detecting and preventing financial crimes in real-time. Edge computing plays a vital role in enhancing real-time AML monitoring by providing improved data processing speed,...

US SEC Charges Dropil and team for Fraudulent and Unregistered ICO

US SEC Charges Dropil and team for Fraudulent and Unregistered ICO

US SEC Charges Dropil and team for Fraudulent and Unregistered ICO

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charges founders and issuer of Dropil, Inc. with securities fraud

What Happened?

April 24, 2020: Between January and March 2018, Jeremy McAlpine, Zachary Matar, and Patrick O’Hara of Dropil, Inc. marketed the DROP token offering online to investors around the world.

In promoting the offering, Dropil promised to pool the capital raised for building and investing with their algorithm-based “Dex Bot”. Dropil promised investors the “Dex Bot” would provide returns from this activity in the form of DROP Tokens deposited into their wallets every 15 days. However, Dropil never made any deposits to investors’ wallets, nor performed any development of the aforementioned “Dex Bot”.

The U.S. SEC (United States Securities and Exchange Commission) also found that Dropil claimed to have raised a total of USD $54 million from 34,000 investors–despite only raising $1.8 million from no more than 2,500 investors. In addition to this falsified evidence and testimony, the founders of Dropil were found to have used the money raised to fund other projects, as well as their own personal bank accounts.​

Source: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2020/lr24804.htm

Who Is Impacted?

Any issuer of a virtual asset who has failed to properly register their offering as a security, or has chosen to market it with false and misleading statements, or promises of potential returns.

Why This Matters?

2,500 investors lost $1.8 million in this scheme. The action taken by the SEC is evidence that they have both the authority and technical ability to monitor, investigate, and take action against the bad actors operating illegally in the digital capital markets, without prejudice.

What’s Next?

Issuers of “utility tokens”, security tokens, cryptocurrencies, etc., who used their virtual asset to either raise capital, secure investment, or generate pre-sales will continue to fall under scrutiny.

  • Was the offering registered with the proper authority?
  • Was the opportunity marketed in a lawful manner and with integrity?
  • Are the funds that were raised being used in the manner that they were presented to potential purchasers?

Such firms should seek independent legal advice to consider whether they may be exposed to this type of risk.

The SEC action against the Dropil ICO is yet another case study in what can put an issuer offside–and land them in court–in the U.S. market.

learn more

Is your AML compliance too expensive, time-consuming, or ineffective?

iComply enables financial services providers to reduce costs, risk, and complexity and improve staff capacity, effectiveness, and customer experience.

Request a demo today.

Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms
Navigating KYB Compliance for Law Firms

Know Your Business (KYB) compliance is essential for law firms to verify the legitimacy of their business clients, mitigate risks, and adhere to regulatory requirements. This article explores the best practices and strategies for...

Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring
Edge Computing and Real-Time AML Monitoring

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) monitoring is crucial for detecting and preventing financial crimes in real-time. Edge computing plays a vital role in enhancing real-time AML monitoring by providing improved data processing speed,...