AUSTRAC v CBA is again major news. This time it is CBA’s Defence to the AUSTRAC Statement of Claim
In this session we will explore CBA’s Defence and how it might impact AML/CTF Programs.
We might even stray into the Amended Statement of Claim.
As ever, we won’t be commenting on the merits of the claim or any defence, only the allegations as they pertain to alleged breaches of the AML/CTF Act, especially aorund AML/CTF Programs.
Paddy Oliver, Managing Director, AML Experts (and a lawyer) will lead the discussions.
Tickets are free.
Bring your own lunch.
This article discusses some of the lessons from the authors’ years of experience conducting independent review of AML/CTF programs, and AUSTRAC’s publication ‘Insights from Compliance Assessments: Good Business Practices and Areas for Improvement’ of December 2016.
The AML/CTF laws require designated service providers to maintain an AML/CTF Program and undertake for regular independent review of Part A of that program (which necessarily also entails some examination of the operation of Part B (Customer due diligence)).
Headlines were made when AUSTRAC brought civil proceedings against Tabcorp for breaches of the AML Act. This was the first major civil proceedings litigation brought by AUSTRAC against any reporting entity in Australia. In the approximate two years that the action lasted there was much conjecture and debate over how the matter might play out. Ultimately, a settlement was reached for Tabcorp to admit to certain breaches of the AML Act and to accept a civil penalty of AUD $45M.