A listed credit provider was required to have its AML Program independently reviewed by an AUSTRAC approved auditor.
AML Experts was engaged and using the Lexcel AML Independent Review Methodology, all legal obligations and compliance requirements were captured. Improvements in the AML/CTF Program were recommended and accepted.
A court enforceable undertaking to change business practices in a defined time frame led the money-remitter to AML Experts. Failure to make the changes would result in closure of the business and possible court action against the owners.
Paddy Oliver was assessed by AUSTRAC as a suitable independent subject matter expert and conducted an independent review of the business. His report outlined the changes required. He conducted a second review after implementation and AUSTRAC was satisfied the business was operating legally. The business now flourishes.
The Australian branch of a global financial services company required an assessment of its risk to ML/TF. An internal assessment was unsophisticated and potentially in breach of the AML Act.
Using the Lexcel ML/TF risk assessment methodology, Paddy Oliver worked with the client to identify the ML/TF risks in the business. The business and regulatory risks were addressed and the client now has greater risk controls within its operations and is meeting its regulatory obligations.
A stockbroking firm had a new product which made it easier for clients to open and run an account. This required an AML Program review before a major bank would approve the product.
AML Experts conducted three rounds of gap analysis in the client’s AML Program against the Act. Improvements were made after each round, with bank approval granted after the third.
A money remitter received an S202 Notice which had serious consequences for its business if not dealt with correctly.
In the expert opinion of Paddy Oliver, the S202 had been issued in error and the less onerous S167 Notice was applicable. After delicate negotiations, AUSTRAC agreed and altered the Notice to a S167. Paddy then assisted the client with a detailed response to both the S202 (in pro forma) and S167 Notices.
This outcome was very favourable to the client especially invoking the self incrimination defence under S169.