Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD

Information Should Be Free!

Outlier has produced an open-source AML and CTF, and Privacy repositories of definitions, acronyms, and terminology that is free for whoever wants it.

Please feel free to provide contributions and/or feedback, as it would be greatly appreciated. We have already had three contributors!

Discombobulated

About a year ago, we had a client who was interacting with the world of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter Terrorist Financing (CTF) for the first time. They were aggravated by the amount of jargon, acronyms, and uncommon uses of certain commonly understood terms. An example is, a business relationship. Those of you that are relatively familiar with the AML space know a business relationship doesn’t mean what the rest of the world thinks it means. In Canada, in the AML context, it means something very different.

A Helping Hand

At the time, they wished for a simple reference point where they could easily find the meaning for different terms. Unfortunately, this entails combing multiple locations, including FINTRAC’s website, plus the Act and Regulations themselves. To make a long story short, there is no easy way. Fed up, they (not so) gently suggested that we (Outlier) fix this. Their idea was creating a GitHub repository.

For those unfamiliar with GitHub, it is a web-based hosting service for version control. It is mostly used for computer code, but has also been used to write and edit books. It offers access control and several collaboration features. A GitHub repository is where the code and/or information is maintained for a specific project. This process is fairly simple to someone who is a coder with years of experience working with GitHub. For myself, this was not so simple. A year later, almost to the day, the repository is created, open and available to the public. There is no need to be scared, you are able to comment and make suggestions without knowing how to code at all. If you can’t figure out how to provide commentary in GitHub, send it to use via email at info@outliercanada.com with the subject line “GitHub Feedback.”

The Power of Collaboration

The (not so) gentle nudge meshed well with one of Outlier’s core beliefs: that information should be free. By collecting the information, housing it in GitHub, and making it available to anyone, we are able to provide free information to everyone who wants it. By making information free and public, it gives others the opportunity to make suggestions, add content, and improve the quality of the information.

What Happens When We Work Together?

By sharing this open-source project with the world, we are looking to empower anyone willing to be empowered. From the client who is interacting with the world of AML for the first time. To the seasoned-veteran who is looking for helpful resources. To the person who wants to provide their customer with a helpful resource. Take the information and do what you wish with it. If you would like to attribute Outlier, awesome! If not, that’s ok too. Our only request is this should never be provided for a fee.

Have a Question?

If you looked at the resource and are curious about how to make a contribution, please feel free to contact us anytime. Contributions can include anything from corrections and suggestions, to the addition of different jurisdictional definitions, specifically the European perspective.

This is not a solicitation (but we do get this request often), should you want to provide a tip in BTC or ETH, our addresses are listed below.

To open a channel with our Lightning Node, our address is: 03acb418d5b88c0009cf07d31ec53d0486814bc77917c352bd7e952520edf7bf3c@99.236.76.38:9735

or you can use Tippin.Me.

bitcoin ethereum
33CdqJTw6jMWVBAveT9Ue3rPym8HPKKPow 0x03CDF23a2Eb070F2c79De5B2E6FB90671D3c70fE

FINTRAC Alert – Laundering the Proceeds of a Romance Scam

Quick Overview

On April 11th, 2019, FINTRAC published an Operational Alert issued in part with the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.  The information provided related to laundering the proceeds of romance scams and mass marketing fraud. The publication provided an explanation of what constitutes a romance scam, some common indicators that may be present and transaction patterns or flow of funds that may suggest fraud.

What Does it Mean?

The suspicious indicators provided by FINTRAC list circumstances or activities that might signal potential cases of individuals caught in a romance scam or the subject of a mass marketing fraud.  This does not mean that if one or more of the indicators are present that the transaction is definitely suspicious and must be reported to FINTRAC. It is meant to ensure that you are aware of the potential that suspicious activity may be taking place.  In that context, if you are involved in customer’s transactions, whether on the front lines or in back office, you must be aware of the indicators in the alert.  If you do encounter a transaction that may be considered unusual, you should attempt to collect additional information that will aid in the Compliance Officer’s decision to report it or clearly document why it was not considered suspicious. Where the Compliance Officer makes the decision to report the transaction to FINTRAC as suspicious, be sure to include “Project CHAMELEON” or “#CHAMELEON” in Part G—Description of suspicious activity in the STR. This will help to facilitate FINTRAC’s disclosure process.

What Now?

In order to ensure familiarity for anyone who interacts with customers and their transactions, the list of FINTRAC’s indicators should be included in your ongoing AML compliance training program.  Furthermore, the indicators should also be included in your procedure manuals, allowing easy access to the information.  Finally, the indicators should be incorporated into your Risk Assessment documentation.  Specifically, when determining customer risk and the controls used to effectively mitigate potential risks.

We’ve made it easier for you to integrate this content into your program by putting the indicators in a Word document for you.

Need a Hand?

Outlier has taken the list of indicators provided by FINTRAC and formatted them into an easy to use Microsoft Word document, which can be found here.  This should allow companies to easily update their documentation and ensure they are sufficiently monitoring for potential instances of romance scams or mass marketing fraud. If you aren’t sure what to do with this information and would like some assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Technology and Cyber Security Incident Reporting

The issue of cyber security incidents seems to continue to be a hot topic for regulators. Late last year, federal Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations came into force, which require organizations to report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), any breach of security safeguards involving personal information under its control where the breach creates a “real risk of significant harm”. Last week, The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an advisory, Technology and Cyber Security Incident Reporting, which sets out OSFI’s expectations for Federally Regulated Financial Institutions (FRFIs) with respect to the reporting of technology and cyber security incidents. The advisory  becomes effective on March 31, 2019.

OSFI’s advisory defines a technology or cyber security incident as an event that has the “potential to, or has been assessed to, materially impact the normal operations of a FRFI, including confidentiality, integrity or availability of its systems and information”. The advisory goes on to give guidance on what a reportable incident may look like:

  • Significant operational impact to key/critical information systems or data;
  • Material impact to FRFI operational or customer data, including confidentiality, integrity or availability of such data;
  • Significant operational impact to internal users that is material to customers or business operations;
  • Significant levels of system/service disruptions;
  • Extended disruptions to critical business systems/operations;
  • Number of external customers impacted is significant or growing;
  • Negative reputational impact is imminent (e.g., public/media disclosure);
  • Material impact to critical deadlines/obligations in financial market settlement or payment systems (e.g., Financial Market Infrastructure);
  • Significant impact to a third party deemed material to the FRFI;
  • Material consequences to other FRFIs or the Canadian financial system;
  • A FRFI incident has been reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner or local/foreign regulatory authorities.

Unlike the Breach of Security Safeguards Regulation, which apply to all companies operating in Canada, OSFI’s advisory applies only to FRFIs. These include banks and insurance companies.

How Do the Reporting Obligations Differ?

Incidents that need to be reported to the OPC focuses on “a breach of security safeguards” involving personal information, where it is reasonable to believe that the breach creates a “real risk of significant harm” by assessing factors such as the sensitivity of the personal information involved, and the probability of misuse. Incidents should be reported as soon as feasible.

Incidents that need to be reported to OSFI focuses on operational impact to the integrity or availability of information systems. Items to be looked at include things such as service disruptions, as well as impacts to critical deadlines related to financial market settlement, payment systems, soundness of business etc. These incidents may or may not include personal information. The OSFI advisory does state one of the considerations for reporting is if the incident has been reported to the OPC. Incidents should be reported as soon as possible, but no later than 72 hours after determining an incident has occurred.

It is possible (even probable) that a FRFI would need to report an incident to both the OPC and OSFI. While organizations that are not FRFI’s are not required to report to OSFI, the advisory may still contain useful guidance in thinking about security, breaches, and best-practices for breach response.

Below is a comparison chart noting the differences (or similarities) between reporting obligations:

Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations OSFI Advisory
Who does it apply to?  All Organizations.  All Federally Regulated Financial Institutions.
Who is a breach reported to? The organization must report the breach to the OPC, but also notify affected individuals. The FRFIs must report the breach to its Lead Supervisor as well as TRD@osfi-bsif.gc.ca
When is a breach reported? As soon as feasible after the organization determines the breach has occurred. As soon as possible, but no later than 72 hours after determining an incident has occurred.
What type of breach is reported? A breach of security safeguards involving personal information where the breach creates a “real risk of significant harm”. Incidents that have a material operational impact to the integrity or availability of information systems.
What type of information must be included in the report? A description of the circumstances of the breach and, if known, the cause;

The day or the period in which the breach occurred;

A description of the personal information that was involved in the breach;

An estimate of the number of individuals impacted – where the breach creates a real risk of significant harm;

The steps that the organization has taken to reduce the risk of harm to the impacted individuals;

The steps that the organization has taken, or will take, to notify impacted individuals; and

The name and contact information of a person the OPC can liaison with.

Date and time the incident was assessed to be material;

Date and time/period the incident took place;

Incident severity and type (e.g. DDoS, malware, data breach, extortion);

A description of the incident (including known direct/indirect impacts, the number of clients impacted etc.);

Primary method used to identify the incident; 

Current status of incident;

Date for internal incident escalation to senior management or Board of Directors;

Mitigation actions taken or planned;

Known or suspected root cause; and

Name and contact information for the FRFI incident executive lead and liaison with OSFI. 

 

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions about this new advisory related to your reporting obligations for technology and cyber security incidents, or compliance in general, please contact us.

Meaningful Consent

Meaningful Consent

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s Guidelines for obtaining meaningful consent became effective on January 1, 2019. The new guideline builds on examining the current state of consent in Canada (see Background section below), and is meant to assist businesses in distinguishing between those things an organization “must do” to obtain meaningful consent, and those things an organization “should do” related to consent.

The guideline is comprised of seven guiding principles for obtaining meaningful consent. These are:

  1. Emphasize key elements (What personal information is being collected, with whom personal information is being shared, for what purposes personal information is collected, used or disclosed and risk of harm and other consequences);
  2. Allow individuals to control the level of detail they get and when;
  3. Provide individuals with clear options to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’;
  4. Be innovative and creative;
  5. Consider the consumer’s perspective;
  6. Make consent a dynamic and ongoing process; and
  7. Be accountable: Stand ready to demonstrate compliance.

Consent – Must Dos

The new guideline lists out the following things an organization must do in order to meet their obligations related to consent:

  1. Make privacy information readily available in complete form, while giving emphasis or bringing attention to the four key elements (What personal information is being collected, with sufficient precision for individuals to meaningfully understand what they are consenting to, with what parties personal information is being shared, for what purposes personal information is being collected, used or disclosed, in sufficient detail for individuals to meaningfully understand what they are consenting to and risks of harm and other consequences).
  1. Provide information in manageable and easily-accessible ways.
  2. Make available to individuals a clear and easily accessible choice for any collection, use or disclosure that is not necessary to provide the product or service.
  3. Consider the perspective of your consumers, to ensure consent processes are user-friendly and generally understandable.
  4. Obtain consent when making significant changes to privacy practices, including use of data for new purposes or disclosures to new third parties.
  5. Only collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate, under the circumstances.
  6. Allow individuals to withdraw consent (subject to legal or contractual restrictions).

There are also requirements related to the form of consent and consent for children under the age of 13. 

Background

The new guideline builds on previous publications examining the current state of consent.

In May 2016, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) published a discussion paper exploring potential enhancements to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The paper asked organizations, individuals and other interested parties to provide comments related to key issues and potential solutions to the consent model as currently formulated.

On June 15, 2017 the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) published a report on qualitative public opinion research conducted with Canadians on the issue of consent under the PIPEDA. The purpose of the research was to understand Canadians’ opinions, attitudes, and concerns with respect to consent.

It was noted that the question of consent became a recurring theme in discussions and emerged as the key measure used by participants for assessing what are acceptable or not acceptable uses of personal information by companies. There was widespread agreement among participants that consent implies both understanding and acceptance of terms and conditions related to the collection and use of their personal information.

On September 21, 2017, the OPC also published their Report on Consent in their 2016-17 Annual Report to Parliament. The report outlined recommendations to address consent challenges posed by the digital age.

Keep In Mind

Consent is one of the foundational elements of PIPEDA. To ensure your organization is always meeting requirements related to consent, you should be able to answer yes (and evidence) the following questions from the OPC’s PIPEDA Self-Assessment Tool related to consent, regardless of the types of products or services you offer:

  • You obtain customer consent for any collection, use or disclosure of personal information.
  • If you don’t obtain customer consent for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, you have determined that it is not required under s.7 of PIPEDA.
  • You make reasonable efforts to ensure that clients and customers are notified of the purposes for which personal information will be used or disclosed.
  • You do not require clients and customers to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information beyond what is necessary to fulfill explicitly specified and limited purposes as a condition of supplying a product or service.
  • You assess the purposes and limit the collection, use and disclosure of personal information when it is required as a condition for obtaining a product or service.
  • You obtain consent through lawful and fair means.
  • You allow a client or customer to withdraw consent at any time subject to legal or contractual restrictions and reasonable notice.
  • You inform clients and customers of the implication of the withdrawal of consent.
  • You consider the sensitivity and intended use of personal information, and the reasonable expectations of clients and customers in determining which form of consent (implied or expressed) you will accept for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.

It is important to note that evidence of consent should be retained in a manner that is easily retrievable and easily sortable.  

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions about this new guideline regarding your consent obligations under PIPEDA, or compliance in general, please contact us.

Mandatory Breach Reporting under PIPEDA

Back in late 2017 we published an article on breach reportingOn November 1, 2018, the new provisions to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) related to breach of security safeguards along with the Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations came into force.

The regulations require organizations to report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) and affected individuals, any breach of security safeguards involving personal information under its control, if it is reasonable to believe the breach creates a “real risk of significant harm”. Failure to report a breach is punishable by a fine of up to CAD 100,000.

On October 29, 2018, the OPC published the final guidance intended to assist organizations with the Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations. The guidance provides direction on how organizations can assess whether a breach creates a “real risk of significant harm” (the guidance provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of harm that will be considered significant) and provides a breach report form that organizations may use to report a breach to the OPC.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions regarding how your organization will be impacted by these requirements, or any questions related to privacy legislation in general, please contact us.

Real Estate Sector – Identifying Individuals

We often hear friends and clients in the real estate sector say they are frustrated that there are not many ways to identify a customer other than meeting them face-to-face. Real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives have an obligation to ascertain a customer’s identity which requires them to refer to specific information and/or documentation to verify a customer’s identity.  However, this does not mean that identification must take place face-to-face. Below is a summary of all the different methods outlined in FINTRAC Guidance that are currently available to identify customers that are individuals and what’s coming.[1]

This article should not be considered advice (legal or otherwise). Throughout this article we refer to a purchaser of real estate as a customer, but you may refer to them as clients depending on your internal procedures. Also, your internal procedures may dictate what methods are acceptable in identifying a customer. If you are unsure, consult with your Compliance Officer where there is any doubt on what is acceptable within your organization.

Face-to-Face Identification for Individuals

When meeting customers face-to-face you may ask for a piece of identification that is:

  • Issued by a provincial, territorial or federal government in Canada or an equivalent foreign government (a foreign Passport would be acceptable for example);
  • Valid, not expired (if there is not expiry date this must be stated in the customer identification record);
  • Bears a unique identifier number (such as a driver’s license number);
  • Bears the name of the individual being identified;
  • Is an original (not a copy, photo, scan, video call, etc.); and
  • Bears a photo of the individual being identified.

Information that must also be collected and recorded includes things such as the customer’s full name (no initials, short forms or abbreviations), their occupation, date of birth, etc. The needed information is included in various fields on industry customer identification forms that are used so it is crucial they are complete and accurate.

Single Process Method

Under the single process method, a customer’s identify can be confirmed by completing  a credit header match on their Canadian credit file, provided it has been in existence for at least three years and has at least two trade lines.  This means there is not a ‘hard hit’, impacting the customer’s credit score. This must be completed at the time of confirming a customer’s identity and cannot take place earlier or later.  To be acceptable, the credit file details must match the exact name, date of birth and address provided by the customer. When using this method to confirm a customer’s identity a record of the following information must be retained:

  • The customer’s name;
  • The name of the Canadian credit bureau holding the credit file;
  • The reference number of the credit file; and
  • The date the credit file was consulted.

Dual Process Method

Where the single process method provides information that does not match what the customer has provided and/or the credit file does not meet the requisite requirements, the dual process method can be used to identify that customer.  This involves referring to information from reliable and independent sources and must be original, valid and the most recent.  In order to qualify as reliable, the sources should be well-known and reputable. Reliable and independent sources can be the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal levels of government, crown corporations, financial entities or utility providers. It is important to note that independent means neither of the sources can be the same, nor can they be you or your business.

Documentation being used must be in its original form.  This makes electronic documents the preference because the customer can send the originals via email, while retaining a copy for themselves. You cannot accept documents that have been photocopied, scanned or faxed.

Under the dual process method, you can refer to any two of the following options:

  • Documents or information from a reliable source that contain the customer’s name and date of birth;
  • Documents or information from a reliable source that contain the customer’s name and address; or
  • Documents or information that contain the customer’s name and confirms that they have a deposit, credit card or other loan account with a financial entity.

The table below provides some examples of the sources and documents that can be referred to when confirming a customer’s identification.  In order to meet the standards of the dual process method, two documents must be obtained but each document cannot be in the same column.

 

Documents or information to verify name and address

 

 

Column A

Documents or information to verify name and date of birth

 

 

Column B

Documents or information to verify name and confirm a financial account

 

Column C

 

Issued by a Canadian government body:

Any card or statement issued by a Canadian government body (federal, provincial, territorial or municipal):

·      Canada Pension Plan (CPP) statement;

·      Property tax assessment issued by a municipality; or

·      Provincially-issued vehicle registration.

·      Federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal levels.

CRA documents:

·      Notice of assessment;

·      Requirement to pay notice;

·      Installment reminder / receipt;

·      GST refund letter; or

·      Benefits statement.

Issued by a Canadian government body:

Any card or statement issued by a Canadian government body (federal, provincial, territorial or municipal):

·      Canada Pension Plan (CPP) statement of contributions;

 

 

Issued by other Canadian sources:

·      Referring to a customer/customer’s Canadian credit file that has been in existence for at least 6 months; or

Insurance documents (home, auto, life);

Confirm that your customer/customer has a deposit account, credit card or loan account by means of:

·      Credit card statement;

·      Bank statement;

·      Loan account statement (for example: mortgage);

·      Cheque that has been processed by a financial institution;

·      Telephone call, email or letter from the financial entity holding the deposit account, credit card or loan account; or

·      Identification product from a Canadian credit bureau (containing two trade lines in existence for at least 6 months);

Issued by other Canadian sources:

·      Referring to the customer/customer ‘s Canadian credit file that has been in existence for at least 6 months;

·      Utility bill (for example, electricity, water, telecommunications);

·      T4 statement;

·      Record of Employment;

·      Investment account statements (for example, RRSP, GIC); or

·      Identification product from a Canadian credit bureau (containing two trade lines in existence for at least 6 months).

 

Where the dual process method is used to confirm the identity of a customer, a record of certain information must be maintained. Specifically:

  • The customer’s name;
  • The name of the two different sources that were used to identify the customer;
  • The type of information (for example, utility statement, bank statement, etc.) that was referred to;
  • The account number associated with the information for each source (if there is account number, you must record a reference number); and
  • The date the information was verified.

Third Parties (Agent or Mandatary)

If you are unable to use any of the methods above (say in the case of a foreign buyer that you cannot meet with face-to-face), you can ask someone in their area to identify them on your behalf.  There must be a written agreement or arrangement in place before using this method and procedures must be in place on how the third party will identify a buyer.

 

What’s To Come?

On June 9th, 2018, draft amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its enacted regulations (there are five separate regulations that we’re going to collectively call regulations here for simplicity’s sake) were published. The draft amendments include some positive changes in respect to requirements related to identity verification.

With regards to the identification document used to identify a customer, the draft amendments replace the word “original” with “authentic” and state that a document used for verification of identity must be “authentic, valid and current.” This may[2] allow for scanned copies of documentation and/or for software that can authenticate identification documents to be used for the dual process method.

Under the draft amendments, regarding the single process method, information in a credit report must be derived from more than one source (this means there must be more than one trade line).

Under the draft amendments, real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives would be allowed to rely on identity verification undertaken by other regulated entities. This method requires a written agreement and a requirement to deliver the identity documentation within three days.

 

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions regarding the identification requirements in place currently or the requirements that are in draft form please contact us.

 

[1] Note that methods used to identify customers that are organizations are different from the ones discussed in this article.

[2] There is no certainty in this regard until a final version is published and FINTRAC has provided their guidance on the matter.

AML Changes For The Real Estate Sector

Here We Go Again! Canada’s Proposed AML Changes for Real Estate Developers, Brokers and Sales Representatives

 

On June 9th, 2018, draft amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its enacted regulations (there are five separate regulations that we’re going to collectively call regulations here for simplicity’s sake). This article is intended to give a high-level summary of the proposed amendments as they relate to the real estate industry.

This article should not be considered advice (legal, tax or otherwise). That said, any of the content shared here may be used and shared freely – you don’t need our permission. While we’d love for content that we’ve written to be attributed to us, we believe that it’s more important to get reliable information into the hands of community members (meaning that if you punk content that we wrote, we may think you’re a jerk but we’re not sending an army of lawyers).

Finally, we want to encourage the community to discuss the proposed changes and submit meaningful feedback for policy makers. The comment period for this draft is 90 days. After this, the Department of Finance takes the feedback to the bat cave and drafts a final version of the amendments. From the time that the final version is published, the draft indicates that there will be 12 months of transition to comply with the new requirements.

What does this mean for my business?

While there are quite a number of proposed changes (the draft is about 200 pages in length), some are likely to have more of an impact on for real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives than others. We’ve summarized the changes that we expect to have the most impact below. Remember these are just proposed changes so there is no need to update your compliance material just yet.

What’s New?

Virtual Currency:

While there are not many proposed amendments that will introduce new requirements for real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives the draft regulations introduce reporting requirements for the receipt of CAD 10,000 or more of virtual currency. These basically are the same as large cash reporting obligations and will require reporting entities to maintain a large virtual currency transaction record.

The requirements for reporting and recordkeeping for virtual currency will be very similar to cash reporting requirements.

What existing requirements are changing?

24-hour rule:

The draft regulations clarify that multiple transactions performed by or on behalf of the same customer or entity within a 24-hour period are considered a single transaction for reporting purposes when they total CAD 10,000 or more. Only one report would need to be submitted to capture all transactions that aggregate to CAD 10,000 or more. For real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives this would apply to recipient of cash deposits. Specifically, this will apply to large cash transactions or CAD 10,000 or more. 

Identification:

The draft regulations replace the word “original” with “authentic” and states that a document used for verification of identity must be “authentic, valid and current. This would allow for scanned copies of documentation and/or for software that can authenticate identification documents to be used for the dual process method for real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives that identify clients in a non-face-to-face manner. Another change, related to measures for verifying identity, is that the word “verify” has been replaced with “confirm” and “ascertain” has been replaced with confirm. What this will mean exactly is still unclear (FINTRAC will need to provide more guidance once the final amendments are released). We are hopeful that it will allow for easier customer identification – especially for customers outside of Canada.

Records:

There have been some changes to the details that must be recorded in records that real estate broker or sales representative must maintain. In particular, the draft regulations add the requirement that information records must contain details of every person or entity for which they act as an agent or mandatary in respect of the purchase or sale of real property. Under the existing regulations information related to the person or entity purchasing real estate only.

Risk Assessment:

Under current regulations, reporting entities are required to assess the risks associated with its business and develop a risk assessment specific to your situation. For real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives a risk assessment must address the following four areas:

  • Products, services, and delivery channels (to better reflect the reality of the real estate sector, this workbook will now only refer to services and delivery channels);
  • Geography;
  • Clients and business relationships; and
  • Other relevant factors

A proposed amendment would require all reporting entities to assess the risk related the use of new technologies, before they are implemented.  This has been a best practice since the requirement to conduct a risk assessment came into force, but this change would make this a formal requirement.

Suspicious Transaction Reporting:

Under current regulations if a reporting entity has reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction or attempted transaction is related to money laundering or terrorist financing, a report must be submitted to FINTRAC within 30 days of the date that a fact was discovered that caused the suspicion. The revised regulations add to this requirement by stating:

The person or entity shall send the report to the Centre within three days after the day on which measures taken by them enable them to establish that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction or attempted transaction is related to the commission of a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence.

This would require reports to be submitted to FINTRAC within three days after the reporting entity conducts an analysis that established reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Schedules:

The draft regulations introduce changes to reporting schedules, requiring more detailed information to be filed with FINTRAC then previously was required. This is in addition to including information that is marked as optional, if a reporting entity has the information. As it relates real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives these changes will impact attempted suspicious and suspicious transaction reporting, terrorist property reporting and large cash reporting. Some of the additional proposed data fields are:

  • every reference number that is connected to the transaction,
  • every other known detail that identifies the receipt (of cash for large cash transactions),
  • type of device used by person who makes request online,
  • number that identifies device,
  • internet protocol address (IP address) used by device,
  • person’s user name, and
  • date and time of person’s online session in which request is made.

Such changes may be onerous for reporting entities, especially for transactions that are conducted online.

Training:

Under current regulation, if real estate developers, brokers and sales representatives use agents, mandataries or other persons to act on their behalf, they must develop and maintain a written, ongoing compliance training program for those agents, mandataries or other persons. The draft regulations introduces an additional requirement in which there must be a documented plan for the ongoing compliance training program and delivering of that the training.

What’s Next?

If you’ve read this far, congratulations and thank you!

We hope that you will contribute your thoughts and comments. You can do this by contacting the Department of Finance directly. Their representative on this file is:

Lynn Hemmings
Acting Director General
Financial Systems Division
Financial Sector Policy Branch
Department of Finance
90 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G5
Email: fin.fc-cf.fin@canada.ca

If you would like assistance drafting a submission, or have questions that you would like Outlier to answer, please get in touch!

Canada’s Proposed AML Changes for MSBs

What’s Old is New Again, Well Updated

On June 9th, 2018, draft amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its enacted regulations (there are five separate regulations that we’re going to collectively call regulations here for simplicity’s sake). This article is intended to give a high-level summary of the proposed amendments as they relate to Money Services Businesses (MSBs).

This article should not be considered advice (legal, tax or otherwise). That said, any of the content shared here may be used and shared freely – you don’t need our permission. While we’d love for content that we’ve written to be attributed to us, we believe that it’s more important to get reliable information into the hands of community members (meaning that if you punk content that we wrote, we may think you’re a jerk but we’re not sending an army of lawyers).

Finally, we want to encourage the community to discuss the proposed changes and submit meaningful feedback for policy makers. The comment period for this draft is 90 days. After this, the Department of Finance takes the feedback to the bat cave and drafts a final version of the amendments. From the time that the final version is published, the draft indicates that there will be 12 months of transition to comply with the new requirements.

♬The Times Regulations Are Changing♬

Foreign MSBs

Currently, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) has issued a policy interpretation (PI-5594) in August of 2013, which states that a “real and substantial connection” to Canada must be present for an entity to be required to register as an MSB with FINTRAC.  A “real and substantial connection” was defined in the interpretation as having one or more of the following:

  • Whether the business is incorporated in Canada;
  • Whether the business has agents in Canada;
  • Whether the business has physical locations in Canada; and/ or
  • Whether the business maintains a bank account or a server in Canada.

The draft amendments introduce a new definition, which is “Foreign Money Services Business” that means anyone serving Canadian customers or entities in Canada is now subject to all Canadian requirements no matter where they are located.  Throughout the proposed changes, where there is a reference to money services businesses, there is also a reference to foreign money services businesses.  This will be significant to MSBs who operate non-face-to-face in the online marketplace and do not reside in Canada.

Non-Face-To-Face Customer Identification

Currently, there is a requirement that when customers are identified using the dual process method, the document and/or data that you collect is in its “original” format. This has been interpreted to mean that if the customer receives a utility bill in the mail, they must send you the original paper (not scanned or copied) document. The word “original” will be replaced with “authentic” (meaning that so long as you believe that the utility bill is a real utility bill for that person, it doesn’t need to be the same piece of paper that they received in the mail).

In addition, there are provisions that would allow reporting entities to rely on the identification conducted previously by other reporting entities. If this method is used to identify a customer, the reporting entity must immediately obtain the identification information from the other reporting entity and have a written agreement in place requiring the entity doing the identification to provide the identification verification within 3 days of the request.

Reporting EFTs of $10,000 or More

If you conduct international remittance transactions at the request of your customers, the requirement to report transactions of $10,000 or more will now be your responsibility, not your financial services provider.

The proposed change removes the language commonly known as the “first in, last out” rule.  This means that the first person/entity to ‘touch’ the funds for transactions incoming to Canada or the last person/entity to ‘touch’ the funds for a transaction outgoing from Canada had the reporting obligation (as long as the prescribed information was provided to them).

The update will change the reporting obligation to whoever maintains the customer relationship. So if you initiate a transaction at your customer’s request (outgoing transaction) or provide final receipt of payment to your customer (incoming transaction), it will be your obligation to report that transaction to FINTRAC.

For example, if the flow of the instructions for payment were as follows:

Currently, the reporting obligation of the outgoing EFT would fall to the bank in Canada.  With the draft updates, the reporting obligation would now fall to the MSB in Canada, because they have the relationship with the customer initiating the transaction.

 

Third Party Determination

Currently, the obligation to determine whether a third party is involved in a transaction relates to Large Cash Transactions.  The proposed changes would include the obligation to make a third party determination for all EFTs of $10,000 or more.  This would also require similar record keeping obligations as a third party determination under the current Large Cash Transaction records.

Suspicious Transaction Reporting

Currently, if a reporting entity has reasonable grounds to suspect that a transaction or attempted transaction is related to money laundering or terrorist financing, a report must be submitted to FINTRAC within 30 days of the date that a fact was discovered that caused the suspicion. This change appeared in the last round of amendments that came into force last year, and the proposed new wording would be another significant change:

The person or entity shall send the report to the Centre within three days after the day on which measures taken by them enable them to establish that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction or attempted transaction is related to the commission of a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence.

This means that a report would be due three days after the reporting entity conducts an investigation or does something that allows them to reach the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to suspect.

Information Included In Reports to FINTRAC

Certain information is required in reports to FINTRAC. Even where information is marked as being optional, if a reporting entity has the information, it becomes mandatory to include it. Some of the additional proposed data fields are:

  • every reference number that is connected to the transaction,
  • type of device used by person who makes request online,
  • number that identifies device,
  • internet protocol address (IP address) used by device,
  • person’s user name, and
  • date and time of person’s online session in which request is made.

These fields may require significantly more data to be included in reports, especially for transactions that are conducted online.

Ongoing Compliance Training

Currently, there are five required elements of a Canadian AML compliance program, but there is soon to be a sixth.  Before you get too worried, it’s not that major.  The change is specific to your ongoing compliance training obligations, which says you must institute and document a plan for your ongoing compliance training program and the delivery of the training.  Basically, in your AML compliance program documentation, you need to provide a description of your training program for at least the next year and how the training will be delivered. Many MSBs have already implemented this best practice.

Risk Assessment Obligations

With the recent addition of the “New Technologies and Developments” category to the Risk-Based Approach requirements, the next logical progression has be added.  The updates include the obligation to assess the money laundering and terrorist financing risk of any new technology before implementation.  Meaning, if you are looking to take your business online and are going to use this fancy, new non-face-to-face ID system, you had better take careful inventory of where your risks are and be sure the appropriate controls have been put in place before going live. Much like the training plan, many MSBs have already implemented this best practice.

Virtual Currency

The draft updates also include major changes related to virtual currency. “Dealers in virtual currencies’ would be regulated as MSBs. New record keeping and reporting obligations would apply to all reporting entities that accept payment in virtual currency, or send virtual currency on behalf of their customers.

For more information on updates specific to virtual currency, please check out our full article.

What Next

If you’ve read this far, congratulations and thank you!

We hope that you will contribute your thoughts and comments. You can do this by contacting the Department of Finance directly. Their representative on this file is:

Lynn Hemmings

Acting Director General

Financial Systems Division

Financial Sector Policy Branch

Department of Finance

90 Elgin Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0G5

Email: fin.fc-cf.fin@canada.ca

If you would like assistance drafting a submission, or have questions that you would like Outlier to answer, please get in touch!

If you are interested in sharing your comments with the Canadian MSB Association (and we highly encourage you to do so) please email luisa@global-currency.com. She will have more information on the industry group’s submission and consultation process.

Finalized Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations

Back in June of 2015, the Digital Privacy Act, received royal assent resulting in amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). Most amendments came into force at that time, except for the much-anticipated requirements related to breach notification. These requirements will come into force once regulations have been developed and put into place and will affect any organization that collects, uses or discloses personal information in the course of commercial activities.

 On September 2, 2017, a draft of those regulations was published for public comment in the Canada Gazette and on April 18, 2018 the final Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations under PIPEDA were published. The regulations set out prescribed requirements for mandatory breach reporting and will come into force on November 1, 2018.

The objective of the regulations is to:

  • Ensure that all Canadians receive consistent information about data breaches that pose a risk of significant harm to them.
  • Ensure that data breach notifications contain sufficient information to enable individuals to understand the significance and potential impact of the breach.
  • Ensure that the Commissioner receives consistent and comparable information about data breaches that pose a risk of significant harm.
  • Ensure that the Commissioner is able to provide effective oversight and verify that organizations are complying.

The regulations require organizations to report, to the privacy Commissioner, any breach of security safeguards involving personal information under its control if it is reasonable to believe the breach creates a real risk of significant harm. The regulations state that such a report must contain the following:

  • a description of the circumstances of the breach and, if known, the cause;
  • the day or the period in which the breach occurred;
  • a description of the personal information that was involved in the breach;
  • an estimate of the number of individuals impacted – were the breach creates a real risk of significant harm;
  • the steps that the organization has taken to reduce the risk of harm to the impacted individuals;
  • the steps that the organization has taken or will take to notify impacted individuals; and
  • the name and contact information of a person who can answer, on behalf of the organization, the Privacy Commissioner’s questions about the breach.

Organizations that experience such a breach will have also have to do the  following:

  • Determining if the breach poses a “real risk of significant harm” to any individual whose personal information was involved in the breach by conducting a risk assessment;
  • Notifying affected individuals if it is determined that there is a real risk of significant harm. How the notification will take place depends on serval factors such as if contact information of the impacted individuals is known, cost, and if the method chosen to deliver such a notification will cause further harm;
  • Issuing notification that contains:
    • a description of the circumstances of the breach;
    • the day or period during which the breach occurred;
    • a description of the personal information that was involved in the breach;
    • the steps that the organization has taken to reduce the risk of harm to the impacted individuals;
    • the steps that the impacted individuals could take to reduce the risk of harm resulting from the breach;
    • a toll-free number or email address that the impacted individuals can use to obtain further information about the breach; 
    • information about the organization’s internal complaint process and about the individual’s right, under PIPEDA and that they can make a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner;
  • Notifying other organizations or government institution if they believe the they may be able to reduce the risk of harm to the impacted individuals.  (i.e. law enforcement agencies). If this is the case, consent of individuals is not required for such disclosures; and
  • Keeping records of any data breach for a minimum of 24 months.

In determining if there is a “real risk of significant harm”, the assessment of risk conducted must consider factors such as the sensitivity of the personal information involved, whether or not the data was encrypted, whether the personal information was misused, if the information has been recovered, etc. The true risk of such factors may not always be known at the time that the risk assessment is first conducted.  One distinction from the draft regulations is that the final regulations also refer to harm “that could result from the breach” rather than harm “resulting from the breach”. This final wording is more practical than that of the language found in the draft, as potential harms will often be speculative at the time the breach is first discovered.

In reporting “as soon as feasible,” the final regulations allow for an organization to submit new information to the Commissioner after the initial report has been submitted. This is a significant improvement over the draft regulations, since organizations often do not have all information at the time a report is required to be submitted.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions regarding these new requirements or any questions related to privacy legislation in general, please contact us.

PIPEDA’s Security Breach Notification Provisions

Back in September we published an article on Breach of Security Safeguards Regulation. Those requirements will come into force on November 1, 2018, according to an Order in Council issued on March 26, 2018.

The much-anticipated requirements will require organizations to report, to the privacy commissioner and affected individuals, any breach of security safeguards involving personal information under its control if it is reasonable to believe the breach creates a real risk of significant harm.

While the final regulation is not yet available, a draft of the regulation can be found here.

We’re Here To Help

If you have questions regarding how your organization will be impacted by these requirements or any questions related to privacy legislation in general, please contact us.

Return to Blog Listing


PROCESSING...