Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD

Proposed AML Amendments & Credit Unions

Jon 1Today’s guest blogger is Jonathan Krumins, Vice-President, AML Risk & Compliance, at vCAMLO Solutions Inc. vCAMLO provides anti-money laundering (AML) and counter terrorist financing (CTF) support to Canadian credit unions. You can learn more about vCAMLO at


On July 4, 2015, draft amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations (PCMLTFR) were published in the Canada Gazette. These changes are not yet in force, and are open to public comment until September 4, 2015. The proposed changes are based on requirements set out by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental body that sets out international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing. For this reason, we expect the final version of these amendments to be similar to the draft text.

2015 Proposed PCMLTFR Amendments and Credit Union Specific Analysis (Line By Line)

Why Do These Changes Matter to Credit Unions?

The proposed changes will have a direct impact on a Credit Union’s AML obligations, including record keeping, member identification and ongoing monitoring requirements. Some of the more significant changes include new member identification methods, expanded definitions (and requirements) for Politically Exposed Persons, and new record keeping requirements for “reasonable measures” taken.

New Member Identification Methods          

IdentificationThe draft regulations will require identification documents to contain a member’s name and photograph. This will exclude SIN cards and birth certificates as acceptable identification documents, and may pose an issue when identifying seniors whose passport or driver’s license has long since expired.

The amendments also provide a number of new identification methods that can be used to identify members both face-to-face and non-face to face. These new methods are an improvement on existing rules, which are currently more restrictive.

For example, a Canadian credit file meeting certain criteria could now be used to identify a member. Many credit unions perform credit checks as part of their account opening process, so this could be used in place of government-issued identification in certain circumstances, or would allow simple non-face to face identification.

Also added is the ability to rely on information from “a reliable source” (yet to be determined, but likely online databases and other web-based resources), and information confirming that an individual has a deposit account, credit card or other loan account with another credit union, bank or caisse populaire. A credit union will also be able to accept identification performed by another credit union.

Politically Exposed Persons

PEFP silhouette 1The proposed regulations have added new categories of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), as follows:

  • Close associates of Politically Exposed Foreign Persons (PEFPs)
  • Politically Exposed Domestic Persons (PEDPs), their family members and close associates
  • Heads of International Organizations (HIOs), their family members and close associates

Given that the list (contained in bill C-31) of qualifying positions for PEDPs includes mayors, it is likely that many if not most credit unions will have members classified as PEDPs. The draft regulations mitigate this somewhat by adding a prescribed period of 20 years to the definition of a PEDP.

Additionally, required measures for PEPs such as determining the source of funds, obtaining senior management authorization to keep an account open, and performing enhanced monitoring will only apply to PEDPs and HIOs (and their family members and close associates) who have been determined to be high risk. Despite these exceptions, identifying and documenting these new categories of PEP will add to credit unions’ compliance obligations.

Reasonable Measures

Many AML record keeping, reporting and determination requirements rely on “reasonable measures” to be taken by financial institutions. For example, in a Large Cash Transaction Report, certain information about the conductor of the transaction, such as their country of residence, their home and business telephone numbers are not mandatory, but reasonable efforts must be made to obtain the information, and if you have it on file, it must be included in the report. The proposed changes will mean that whenever you take “reasonable measures”, and the measures taken are unsuccessful, you will then need to keep a record describing what the measures were and the reason they were unsuccessful. This will require additional work and record keeping for categories such as FINTRAC reporting, PEP determinations and correspondent banking relationships, among others.

Public Comments

Public comments about the proposed changes will be accepted by the Ministry of Finance until September 4, 2015. They must be submitted in writing, as follows:

Mail       Attention: Lisa Pezzack

Director, Financial Systems Division

Department of Finance

90 Elgin Street

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0G5


Need a Hand?

If you would like someone to look over your submission before you make comments to the Department of Finance, you can get in touch with us free of charge. We will look over your submission and make suggestions, without any cost to you. If you need a hand, please feel free to contact vCAMLO or Outlier.

Unpublished FINTRAC Penalties

Jonathan Krumins, Vice President, vCAMLO

Today’s guest blogger is Jonathan Krumins, Vice-President, AML Risk & Compliance, at vCAMLO Solutions Inc. vCAMLO provides anti-money laundering (AML) and counter terrorist financing (CTF) support to Canadian credit unions. You can learn more about vCAMLO at


Reporting entities (REs) often ask us about penalties, in particular when they are published publicly. Since 2009, The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) has issued Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) against persons and entities that were found to have violated the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, and its associated Regulations. In many cases up to 2013, FINTRAC has published details on its website about each penalty, including the name of the person or entity, the dollar amount of the AMP, as well as the cited deficiencies. The AMP area of their website has two sections – a list of all published penalties, as well as a running total of AMPs imposed since December 30, 2008, divided by sector.

As of June 26, 2013, FINTRAC changed its policy regarding public notice of AMPs, so that they would be published if one or more of the following criteria are met:

  • The person or entity has committed a very serious violation; or
  • The base penalty amount is equal to or greater than $250,000, before adjustments are made in consideration of the person or entity’s compliance history and ability to pay; or
  • Repeat significant non-compliance on the part of the person or entity.

AMPs can only be published once the appeals process is exhausted, which can take years to complete. This process can include an appeal to FINTRAC’s director, and a subsequent appeal to the Canadian Federal court.

Understanding this context is vital for RE Compliance Officers. While trend information related to published and unpublished penalties is not likely of interest to frontline staff, understanding these patterns is useful in fielding questions from Senior Management and the Board of Directors.

We have conducted an analysis of data published on the FINTRAC’s website which shows a trend of an increasing number of unpublished AMPs since 2013. These unpublished AMPs were primarily imposed on the Credit Union/Caisse Populaire and Money Service Business (MSB) sectors.


We have made all calculations using information available as of April 20, 2015. We examined publicly available information on FINTRAC’s webpage, using the running total of AMPs by sector and the list of public AMPs. We also examined a summary of AMPs as of October 2014 obtained by Outlier through an Access to Information request. Our analysis focuses only on the sectors that have received AMPs, either published or unpublished: Credit Unions (including Caisses Populaires), MSBs, Real Estate Brokers, Securities Dealers and Casinos.

In addition, we accessed “cached” versions of FINTRAC’s website to review past versions in order to include six public AMPs that were issued between August 19, 2009 and April 26, 2010. In accordance with FINTRAC policy, these were removed from FINTRAC’s website after the five year public notice period had expired. We have included this historical data in order to provide a full view of the penalties issued. It is noteworthy that there are likely additional penalties in the process of being appealed (this information cannot be made available until the appeals process is complete).

Published AMPs vs. Unpublished AMPs

By analyzing the list of published penalties, compared to the running total of AMPs, it appears that there have been a significant number of unpublished penalties:


Credit Unions

Credit Unions have received the largest number of unpublished penalties, both in terms of number and dollar amount. Credit unions have received 3 published AMPs, totalling $246,690. They have also received an additional 11 unpublished AMPs, totalling $405,855.

Trend analysis: This appears to be a significant increase in overall enforcement action by FINTRAC in the Credit Union sector. The total number of penalties against Credit Unions have increased sharply to 14, which means that Credit Unions now have the second largest number of listed AMPs (published and unpublished), behind MSBs. All penalties against Credit Unions since 2013 were unpublished. This data can also be interpreted to mean that FINTRAC’s enforcement efforts against Credit Unions have increased since 2013, however it is important to remember that AMPs are listed on FINTRAC’s website after they are finalized, which can mean a significant gap between when an AMP was issued and when it is listed, especially if there is an appeal involved.

Money Service Businesses (MSBs)

MSBs have received 22 published penalties, totalling $527,510. They also have received eight unpublished penalties, totalling $68,520. Interestingly, a $12,880 penalty that was published against an MSB on July 11, 2013 no longer appears on FINTRAC’s website.

Trend analysis: MSBs continue to be the leading sector in terms of receiving AMPs, although similar to the other sectors examined, the majority of AMPs that were against MSBs from late 2013 through to 2015 were unpublished.

Real Estate Brokers

Real Estate Brokers have received three published penalties totalling $40,520 compared to three unpublished penalties totalling $25,960.

Trend Analysis: Real Estate Brokers have received relatively few published and unpublished penalties in comparison to the Credit Union and MSB sectors. The number of unpublished penalties (compared to the number of published penalties) is consistent with trends across all sectors.

Securities Dealers

Securities Dealers have received four published penalties totalling $565,180 compared to one unpublished penalty of $21,480.

Trend Analysis: Securities Dealers have received relatively few published and unpublished penalties in comparison to the Credit Union and MSB sectors.


Casinos have never received a published AMP, however FINTRAC’s website shows an unpublished AMP of $56,700 issued against a casino. This may be surprising to anyone that has read about BC Lottery Corporation, however, AMPs are not part of these records until the appeals process has been exhausted (and there have been successful appeals).

Trend analysis: It is difficult to establish a trend based on a single data point, however this unpublished AMP shows that the Casino sector is no longer unaffected by FINTRAC penalties.

What Does This All Mean?

Screen Shot 2015-05-06 at 11.58.01 AM

Note: The dates on the above graph represent when FINTRAC’s website was analyzed to calculate the total number of penalties, with the exception of October 2014, which is the “as of” date of an AMP listing received in a Freedom of Information request. Data for unpublished AMPs is only available since 2013.

As of June 2013, FINTRAC began to apply the updated standard for publicly listing AMPs. Since this change, unpublished penalties comprise approximately 42% of all issued AMPs by amount and 43% by number. While this is excellent news for REs that are concerned with the negative media and other reputational risk related to published penalties, it will make it more difficult to assess the reasons that REs are receiving penalties. The specific violations that led to a penalty are only made public by FINTRAC when the AMP is published. In order to ensure that our Credit Union clients are well-informed about industry trends related to penalties, vCAMLO will be requesting additional information and performing trend analysis. Stay tuned!

Your Best Defence

To avoid AMPs, it is essential to constantly test for weaknesses in your compliance regime. Conduct rigorous effectiveness testing (this is required at least every two years), and consider more frequent testing. Finally, ensure that immediate steps are taken to remediate deficiencies received in FINTRAC exams. Deficiencies that re-appear in follow-up exams are taken seriously by FINTRAC, and can lead to penalties, published or not.

Need a Hand?

vCAMLO: If you are a credit union or MSB, and have any questions related to financial compliance, or if you are interested in AML Support Services, please contact us for a complimentary 30 minute compliance discussion.

Outlier: If you need assistance reviewing your technology solution or FINTRAC reporting to be certain that you’re meeting the standard described in this blog, or just someone to chat with to make sure that you’re on the right track, please contact us.




Return to Blog Listing