24 August 2023 - 5 minute read
In the world of Financial and Accountable Institutions, compliance with regulations is not just a best practice—it's a legal obligation. One such crucial regulation is the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FIC Act), designed to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities. Accountable Institutions that fail to comply with the FIC Act and its regulations can face severe consequences, including sanctions and fines. To understand the gravity of non-compliance, let us delve into potential sanctions and fines, along with lessons from regulatory actions in different jurisdictions.
For Accountable Institutions, the cost of non-compliance with the FIC Act can be steep. Sanctions and fines are put in place to ensure that financial entities take their obligations seriously and play their part in maintaining the integrity of the financial system. Here are some potential consequences of non-compliance:
1. Monetary Penalties: Monetary fines are a common consequence of non-compliance. Regulatory authorities have the authority to impose fines that are proportional to the severity of the violation. These fines can range from substantial sums to a percentage of the institution's annual turnover.
2. Reputational Risk: Beyond financial penalties, non-compliance can tarnish an institution's reputation. News of regulatory action can erode client trust and investor confidence, leading to a loss of business opportunities and decreased market value.
3. Business Restrictions: Regulatory authorities can impose restrictions on an institution's operations. This could involve limiting the types of services the institution can offer or even suspending its operations entirely until compliance is achieved.
4. Criminal and Civil Liability: In egregious cases, non-compliance may lead to criminal charges against the institution or its executives. Civil liability can also result from non-compliance, with affected parties seeking damages for losses incurred due to the institution's actions.
5. Increased Scrutiny: Non-compliant institutions may be subjected to increased regulatory oversight and scrutiny. This could involve more frequent audits, reporting requirements, and even the appointment of external monitors.
To truly understand the potential consequences of FIC Act non-compliance, it's instructive to examine how regulators in different jurisdictions have handled similar situations. Let's explore case studies from the United Arab Emirates, Botswana, Morocco, and Mauritius:
1. United Arab Emirates (UAE): The UAE has stringent anti-money laundering (AML) regulations to safeguard its position as a Global Financial Hub. In 2019, the UAE Central Bank imposed fines ranging from AED 300,000 to AED 1 million (approximately USD 82,000 to USD 273,000) on Financial Institutions for non-compliance with AML regulations.
On 4 March 2022, the UAE was added to the list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring (Grey List) by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Since being Grey Listed by the FATF, the UAE Regulators have applied enforcement actions on Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs), deemed to be non-Financial Accountable Institutions. The following are recent examples of sanctions and fines imposed by the UAE Regulators:
The UAE Companies Registrars and Regulators conducted more than 750 on-site inspections in addition to off-site reviews, resulting in imposing penalties on non-compliance to over 3,000 companies. The enforcement actions and penalties imposed were to the tune of AED75 million.
Furthermore, enforcement actions were conducted, resulted in the confiscation of AED 3 billion of illicit criminal proceeds from 270 companies for violating the UAE’s Anti-Money Laundering (AML) law. Source: Gulf News Article – 27 February 2023
2. Botswana: The Bank of Botswana is responsible for regulating financial institutions in the country. In 2020, the bank fined a commercial bank in Botswana approximately BWP 9.6 million (around USD 860,000) for not adhering to AML regulations. This case demonstrates Botswana's dedication to ensuring the integrity of its financial sector.
3. Morocco: Morocco's financial regulatory authority, Autorité Marocaine du Marché des Capitaux (AMMC), oversees compliance in the securities sector. In 2018, AMMC fined a financial institution for violating regulations related to the protection of investors. The fine, amounting to MAD 1 million (roughly USD 110,000), highlights Morocco's commitment to investor protection.
4. Mauritius: The Financial Services Commission (FSC) of Mauritius enforces compliance within the financial services sector. In recent years, the FSC has taken actions against non-compliant entities, including suspending licenses and imposing fines. These measures underline Mauritius's dedication to maintaining the reputation of its financial services industry.
5. South Africa: New legislation and regulations were introduced towards the end of 2022, to include a list of new Accountable Institutions required to each implement a Risk Management and Compliance Programme (RMCP) to mitigate the risk of Financial Crimes.
During February 2023 the FATF added South Africa to the list of countries under enhanced supervision (Grey List). South Africa is to work towards implement the FATFs action plan by implementing the following important action point – Action (2) improving risk-based supervision of DNFBPs and demonstrating that all AML/CFT supervisors apply effective, proportionate, and effective sanctions for noncompliance.
While the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) introduced a grace period until May 2024 for new Accountable Institutions to develop and embed their compliance programmes, in line with the latest FIC Act (as amended) and Regulations, as well as recently amended laws to combat Money Laundering, Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation Financing.
We can expect to be removed from the FATFs Grey list, South Africa’s Regulators and Supervisory bodies will have to introduce sanctions and financial penalties to demonstrate their enforcement efforts, similar to what the UAE have instituted towards Non-Financial Accountable Institutions or DNFBPs.
The consequences of non-compliance with the FIC Act and its regulations are not to be taken lightly. Accountable Institutions that fail to meet their obligations can face substantial sanctions, fines, and reputational damage. By examining regulatory actions in different jurisdictions like the UAE, Botswana, Morocco, and Mauritius, we gain valuable insights into the seriousness with which global regulators approach non-compliance. It is clear that Financial and Accountable Institutions must prioritise compliance not only to avoid penalties but also to uphold the integrity of the financial system and build trust with clients and investors.
Why risk being subjected to enforcement actions. Avoid the potential of sanction or financial penalties.
Red Cipher provides the required Regulatory Compliance advisory services. To find out more:
Tap into Expertise You Can Trust
Leverage Our Certified Professionals to Mitigate Your Risks!
