Danuta Pavilenene, BC, Vilnius, 20.05.2008.
The Board of the Bank of Lithuania adopted new instructions for credit institutions aimed at the prevention of money laundering and/or terrorist financing, the Bank announced.
The document regulates the prevention of not only money laundering, but also terrorist financing, implementation of the risk-based method, procedure for the simplified and stricter verification of customer’s identity. Special attention is paid to suspicious, unusual and complex monetary transactions and operations, informs LETA/ELTA.
The instructions emphasize the cases when credit institutions must take measures and identify and verify the identity of a customer or a beneficiary, including: before performing one-off or several interrelated monetary operations or concluding transactions that exceed the amount of EUR 15,000 or an equivalent amount in foreign currency, irrespective of the performance of the transaction in one or several interrelated operations; before exchanging cash, if the amount of the cash exchanged exceeds EUR 6,000 or an equivalent amount in foreign currency.
Credit institutions must classify customers to risk groups according to the respective criteria and procedures established in their internal documents. According to the instructions, the creation of a comprehensive "portrait" of a customer is one of the main elements ensuring efficient management of the risk of money laundering and/or terrorist financing.
Credit institutions are required, among other things, to verify whether their customer is not included in the consolidated list of persons, their groups and enterprises and institutions to which financial sanctions of the European Union are imposed. Credit institutions are prohibited to start and continue correspondent banking or other relationships with fictitious banks.
It is established in which cases credit institutions must suspend suspicious and unusual monetary operations and inform about it the Financial Crime Investigation Service under the Ministry of the Interior.
http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/finances/&doc=1737
Showing posts with label Lithuania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lithuania. Show all posts
on Saturday, March 10, 2012
A $9 billion money-laundering operation partly run by several Russian bank employees has been broken up by police, the Russian Interior Ministry said.
Four Azerbaijani nationals were detained by police, accused of being involved in the operation laundering about $3 billion a year since 2008, RIA Novosti said Friday.
The currency was suspected to have been generated from illegal business operations, transferred to foreign outlets and smuggled back into Russia, the news agency said.
"It was established that the criminal scheme involved employees of Russian banks and other commercial structures: money was transferred to foreign organizations, cashed, and then smuggled back into Russia," a statement said.
The ministry said fake companies were registered in connection with the scheme in Lithuania, the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan and Cyprus.
Source: UPI
on Tuesday, December 26, 2006
A report from London's financial district says EU member states have failed to properly implement anti-money-laundering rules
by Helena Spongenberg
The European Union's fight against money laundering is being hampered by member states' improper implementation of EU law across the bloc, according to a new report.
EU member states "fell some way short" of creating a consistent anti-money laundering regime across the EU when they implemented the 2001 second money laundering directive (2MLD), concluded the study released on Thursday (21 December) by the City of London Corporation—a local government body for London's financial district.
"An effective anti-money laundering regime, which deters and detects determined criminals without placing unrealistic burdens on honest businesses and their advisors, is essential if we are to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the financial system," said Michael Snyder from the City of London Corporation.
"Within the EU single market, it is also vital that this regime operates in a uniform manner," he added in his statement, explaining that there were major discrepancies in the directive's scope and interpretation across the different EU countries.
The report pointed out that the way member states identified and reported suspicious actions differed from each other, while some countries are too slow to react to fishy money movements making it impossible to take action against them.
It also says that the 2MLD rules on "tipping off" clashes with the EU's own Data Protection Directive giving the customer the right to obtain access about him- or herself.
The directive was meant to be implemented in 2003 for the 15 old EU member states and in 2004 for the 10 new EU countries. But Italy was six months late while, Greece implemented the law two and a half years late.
The City of London analysed in detail how the directive was implemented in six countries - UK, Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland and Lithuania.
The report comes as European policy makers and regulators will strive to implement the third money laundering directive in 2007.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2006/gb20061226_956627.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_more+of+today's+top+stories
by Helena Spongenberg
The European Union's fight against money laundering is being hampered by member states' improper implementation of EU law across the bloc, according to a new report.
EU member states "fell some way short" of creating a consistent anti-money laundering regime across the EU when they implemented the 2001 second money laundering directive (2MLD), concluded the study released on Thursday (21 December) by the City of London Corporation—a local government body for London's financial district.
"An effective anti-money laundering regime, which deters and detects determined criminals without placing unrealistic burdens on honest businesses and their advisors, is essential if we are to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the financial system," said Michael Snyder from the City of London Corporation.
"Within the EU single market, it is also vital that this regime operates in a uniform manner," he added in his statement, explaining that there were major discrepancies in the directive's scope and interpretation across the different EU countries.
The report pointed out that the way member states identified and reported suspicious actions differed from each other, while some countries are too slow to react to fishy money movements making it impossible to take action against them.
It also says that the 2MLD rules on "tipping off" clashes with the EU's own Data Protection Directive giving the customer the right to obtain access about him- or herself.
The directive was meant to be implemented in 2003 for the 15 old EU member states and in 2004 for the 10 new EU countries. But Italy was six months late while, Greece implemented the law two and a half years late.
The City of London analysed in detail how the directive was implemented in six countries - UK, Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland and Lithuania.
The report comes as European policy makers and regulators will strive to implement the third money laundering directive in 2007.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2006/gb20061226_956627.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_more+of+today's+top+stories
on Monday, December 25, 2006
22.12.2006 - 09:22 CET By Helena Spongenberg
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Union's fight against money laundering is being hampered by member states' improper implementation of EU law across the bloc, according to a new report.
EU member states "fell some way short" of creating a consistent anti-money laundering regime across the EU when they implemented the 2001 second money laundering directive (2MLD), concluded the study released on Thursday (21 December) by the City of London Corporation – a local government body for London's financial district.
"An effective anti-money laundering regime, which deters and detects determined criminals without placing unrealistic burdens on honest businesses and their advisors, is essential if we are to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the financial system," said Michael Snyder from the City of London Corporation.
"Within the EU single market, it is also vital that this regime operates in a uniform manner," he added in his statement, explaining that there were major discrepancies in the directive's scope and interpretation across the different EU countries.
The report pointed out that the way member states identified and reported suspicious actions differed from each other, while some countries are too slow to react to fishy money movements making it impossible to take action against them.
It also says that the 2MLD rules on "tipping off" clashes with the EU's own Data Protection Directive giving the customer the right to obtain access about him- or herself.
The directive was meant to be implemented in 2003 for the 15 old EU member states and in 2004 for the 10 new EU countries. But Italy was six months late while, Greece implemented the law two and a half years late.
The City of London analysed in detail how the directive was implemented in six countries - UK, Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland and Lithuania.
The report comes as European policy makers and regulators will strive to implement the third money laundering directive in 2007.
http://euobserver.com/9/23166
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The European Union's fight against money laundering is being hampered by member states' improper implementation of EU law across the bloc, according to a new report.
EU member states "fell some way short" of creating a consistent anti-money laundering regime across the EU when they implemented the 2001 second money laundering directive (2MLD), concluded the study released on Thursday (21 December) by the City of London Corporation – a local government body for London's financial district.
"An effective anti-money laundering regime, which deters and detects determined criminals without placing unrealistic burdens on honest businesses and their advisors, is essential if we are to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the financial system," said Michael Snyder from the City of London Corporation.
"Within the EU single market, it is also vital that this regime operates in a uniform manner," he added in his statement, explaining that there were major discrepancies in the directive's scope and interpretation across the different EU countries.
The report pointed out that the way member states identified and reported suspicious actions differed from each other, while some countries are too slow to react to fishy money movements making it impossible to take action against them.
It also says that the 2MLD rules on "tipping off" clashes with the EU's own Data Protection Directive giving the customer the right to obtain access about him- or herself.
The directive was meant to be implemented in 2003 for the 15 old EU member states and in 2004 for the 10 new EU countries. But Italy was six months late while, Greece implemented the law two and a half years late.
The City of London analysed in detail how the directive was implemented in six countries - UK, Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland and Lithuania.
The report comes as European policy makers and regulators will strive to implement the third money laundering directive in 2007.
http://euobserver.com/9/23166
on Thursday, December 21, 2006
Efforts to tackle money laundering across Europe have been hampered by the flawed implementation of a crucial EU directive, a report has said.
The way member states implemented the 2001 directive "fell short" of creating a consistent regime for tackling crime, a City of London report has concluded.
Procedures for identifying and reporting suspicious transactions differed between countries, it said.
Some members took too long to report suspicious deals, ruling out action.
The report was critical of the way in the which the law, which extended the scope of existing regulations to include the proceeds of all serious crime not just drug trafficking, was implemented.
It analysed how the directive, which was supposed to come into force in member states in 2003 and accession countries in 2004, was enacted in six countries - UK, Spain, Italy, Greece, Poland and Lithuania.
Two of these - Italy and Greece - failed to implement the directive on schedule while there were major discrepancies in its scope and interpretation across different countries.
These included:
- Different offences are covered by different countries. Greece includes crimes involving the protection of antiquities while Spain excludes bribery.
- Monitoring and enforcement of the directive differs wildly from country to country. Procedures for reporting suspicious transactions differ significantly. Lithuania and Poland require all transactions worth more than 15,000 euros to be reported, irrespective of any suspicions of corruption.
- Reports are made by post in Italy, meaning transactions are likely to be concluded before any action can be taken.
- Reporting of non face-to-face transactions is unclear and inconsistent
One area of recurring concern was the requirement in the law for a wide range of businesses including estate agents, lawyers, accountants and dealers in expensive goods to report any suspicious deals.
Inconsistency
The report found that accountants, for instance, were providing different services in different countries, making it impossible to enforce a consistent reporting standard.
At the same time, claims that some individuals should be exempt on the grounds of professional privilege and human rights law have become the subject of legal challenges in at least three countries.
The City of London said an "effective" anti-money laundering regime was essential to maintaining the integrity of the global financial system.
"Within the EU, it is also vital that this regime operates in an uniform manner," said Michael Snyder, chairman of the body's policy and resources committee.
"This report makes clear that implementation of the directive fell some way short of producing a uniform anti-money laundering regime across the EU."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6200633.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
