MSB | Outlier Solutions

Who Wins The De-Risking Shell Game?

The volume of evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, grows every day. The story on the surface is simple enough: banks are making the decision to “de-risk” (a polite way to say close the account of) certain types of businesses including money service businesses (MSBs) and digital currency businesses that are considered “too risky” by traditional financial services providers. The unintended consequences have included strained remittance corridors and frustration for businesses struggling to get by without reliable banking services. While these consequences are well documented, there are other unintended consequences of the de-risking phenomenon that have been less widely discussed. These include a growing lack of transparency between some industries and their banking service providers and directly threatens our ability to effectively manage money laundering and terrorist financing risk at both the financial institution and national levels.

It’s a shell game of “hide the risk” – and we’re all losing.

Businesses Are Losing

By now, if you haven’t heard about businesses struggling to survive without access to banking facilities, you would have had to ignore financial media for the past two years. The global effects of de-risking have attracted the attention of the G-20, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the World Bank, and many more. While it’s clear that there are issues in terms of access to banking, let’s be honest with one another: while some businesses will close up shop, many others will take a different track.

Whether it’s using alternative financial service providers, payment processors, personal bank accounts or merely opening accounts at other financial institutions without revealing the true nature of the underlying activity, businesses will find a way to carry on. I’ve spoken personally to businesses that have taken these approaches, and it has never been their first or most ideal choice. These aren’t criminals carrying on some nefarious business! They are entrepreneurs who would rather be able to provide their real business plan to their banks and explain their activity honestly, but they do not believe that this option is open to them.

Banks Are Losing

Consequently, a bank with a policy that prohibits these types of businesses from holding accounts will deal with businesses that have gone to great lengths to conceal the true nature of their activity. The banks are unaware of the true nature of the activity passing through their accounts, and therefore ill equipped to manage the risk related to these activities. The strain on banking resources must be phenomenal, as banks must constantly devise new ways to interpret patterns of customer activity to detect undeclared MSB or digital currency activity. While it isn’t easy to quantify these costs, I can only surmise that the cost of this detective work must be high, despite being ineffective.

To further muddy the waters, businesses who fail to provide transparent information to their banks for fear of de-risking may also conduct completely legal activities in a way that starts to look like criminal activity. For example, if you believe that your business banking relationship is not reliable, you may open many accounts (in some combination of personal and business names) and conduct fractions of your banking through each, transferring funds from one account to another as needed to meet your obligations. On the surface, it can seem much like “layering” or “structuring” activity (techniques used by money launderers to make funds more difficult to trace). This further adds to the banks’ burden by creating more activity that must be monitored and investigated.

Entire Nations Are Losing

It has been widely publicized that in some cases like Somalia, entire nations that are dependent on remittance payments from friends and family living and working abroad are experiencing increased difficulty. Reliable and cost-effective remittance payment providers are a shrinking pool. This seems absurd in a time when technology can facilitate a payment in seconds.

National Security Is Losing

It’s not just far-flung places dependent on remittance payments that are losing. Here at home, we have a national security system that is dependent on our financial intelligence units (FIUs) having access to reliable data. The reliability of that data is undermined at every level by the de-risking shell game:

Businesses do not declare the true nature of their activity – and there are no incentives for them to do so;
Banks do not understand the nature of their customers’ activities, making it difficult detect potentially criminal activity; and
There is likely to be an increase in “false positives”, where activity conducted by businesses that do not believe that they can reveal the true nature of their activity to their banks instead conduct business in a manner that resembles criminal money laundering techniques.

Taken together, this results in the likelihood that key information is not being reported to FIUs correctly. Consequently, it becomes more difficult for law enforcement and other national securities to rely on this data to perform their roles effectively.

Who Is Winning?

There are two potential winners in this game and much like the shell games that you see duping tourists on the streets of large cities, neither is without malevolent intent.

The first are unregistered/unlicensed MSB businesses. These are businesses that have ignored regulatory requirements and carried on business without any FIU reporting. In some cases, these businesses will even minimize their interaction with the local financial system by using foreign bank accounts (and point of sale terminals) to collect customer funds. While the risk of penalty is high, the reward for these businesses (in particular where they are able to complete transactions that pose a challenge for their compliant counterparts) can also be high.

The second is criminal organizations. When legitimate businesses are performing transactions that look like money laundering, detecting true criminal activity becomes exponentially more difficult. I can only assume that the criminals are laughing all the way to the bank.

Shutting Down The Shell Game

De-risking is a complex problem with complex outcomes, but the solution need not be complicated. It does, however, involve the cooperation of all levels of the financial services community: regulators, banking service providers and businesses.

The costs and benefits of de-risking need to be reassessed. Where banking service providers are capable of accepting and managing accounts for businesses considered to be “higher risk”, they should do so, with their regulator’s blessing. Rather than perpetuating the shell game, regulators should encourage banking service providers to manage risk (and provide solid guidance with reference to how this should be done). Finally, there should be open communication between banking service providers, regulators and business banking customers. The lines of communication closed by de-risking must be opened, allowing banks to have honest conversations that will provide real insight into their customers’ business and lead to effective long-term risk management.

Quebec MSB Respondents

Since Quebec’s MSB Act came into force in 2012, there have been many questions about whether or not the law applied to entities that don’t have a physical presence in Quebec (the answer is yes, if you’re serving customers located in Quebec at the time of the transaction). Most recently, the Authorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF), Quebec’s provincial regulator, has announced that the law applies to digital currency ATMs and exchanges. One of the challenges for businesses that don’t have a physical presence in Quebec is designating a respondent within the province. While Outlier doesn’t have Quebec offices either, we’ve put together some resources to help you navigate the process.

Hefty Disclaimers

We’re not lawyers, and nothing in this article should be considered legal advice. While we’ve put together some resources that we hope will be helpful, you will need to decide on the right course of action for you and your business.

What Does A Respondent Do?

A respondent is a person or company that acts as your point of contact with the AMF. While this seems relatively simple on the surface, the respondent must pass relevant communications to you and pass information from you to the AMF, the requirements are actually more complex than this (see below for the full text from the MSB Act on respondents). A respondent must have premises in Quebec and be approved by the AMF. The AMF has taken the position that those involved in financial services (including respondents) must demonstrate “integrity and good moral character” (this is broadly defined) and the AMF can reject MSBs, agents and respondents that do not meet this criteria.

The MSB Act goes on to state that a respondent must be “able to properly exercise a respondent’s functions with the Authority.” This means that the respondent will need to understand how to communicate with the AMF (and while French language isn’t a requirement, it is definitely a benefit here). The respondent will also need significant access to information about your business and operations, both to assist in the application process and to communicate with the AMF.

Finally, there is some debate about the liability that the respondent bears in acting in this capacity for an MSB. We’ve reached out to the AMF for their position on respondent liability. The regulator’s position is that a respondent bears little if any liability, provided that they are acting “in good faith.” This means that the respondent is expected to have done some degree of due diligence regarding their MSB client, and that the respondent believes that the information that they are providing to the AMF is complete and accurate.

There is also a risk to MSBs. The respondent will act as your point of contact with the AMF. This means that the regulator will most often be communicating with your respondent, rather than with you directly.

What Should I Look For in a Respondent?

As the voice of your business with the AMF, you’ll want a respondent that has certain characteristics:

GOOD COMMUNICATION – Your respondent should be someone that the AMF can reach when they have information requests, and the respondent should be able to quickly pass these requests to you. If your respondent’s contact information changes, they’ll need to update this information with the AMF to avoid missing any information requests or other regulatory communication.

RELIABLE – Like most regulatory requests, when the AMF asks for information or clarification, there are generally strict timelines. Your respondent should be someone who understands this and will ensure that your responses are submitted on time.

INTEGRITY – Your respondent will need to pass a background check (this is required under the MSB Act) and deal with your confidential business information. It is vital that the respondent be someone that you can trust.

EXPERIENCE – The ideal respondent understands their role, your business and has experience dealing with the AMF. The respondent, in some cases, may also act as an advisor, helping you to devise the best strategy for your business.

PRICE TRANSPARENCY – The respondent is likely to be doing much more than passing messages between you and the AMF. You should have a clear understanding of the fees that you will pay and the work that you’ve authorized the respondent to complete on your behalf. Your agreement with your respondent should be spelled out in formal contracts.

What Do I Need to Do for the Respondent?

You should expect to provide the respondent with due diligence information. This will include information about your business and its beneficial owners and directors. This includes information that is required under the MSB Act as well as additional information that the respondent requires based on their own internal processes.

MSBs should be prepared to provide at least the following information early on in discussions with respondents:

The name and ID of all those employees involved in the MSB activity;
A list containing the name, date of birth, if applicable, domiciliary address and telephone number of each of its mandataries and of each of the officers of its mandataries who are responsible for the money services offered on behalf of the money-services business;
A list of the financial institutions with which it deals;
The MSB’s business plan; and
The MSB’s financial statements for the last fiscal year.

If you are uncomfortable providing this type of information before you have a signed agreement in place, you can always ask the respondent to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Respondent Contacts

The contacts below are people that we know and have spoken to personally about the respondent services that they provide. While we can’t guarantee anything that another person or company does, they’ve got our vote of confidence.

Respondents are listed in alphabetical order by first name.

Jean-François Lefebvre

Phone: (514) 608-0684

Email: jeanfrancoislefebvre9@gmail.com

Relevant specializations and experience: Jean-François has experience in advising MSBs and financial institutions, both as a regulator and as a consultant. He is a former FINTRAC senior representative and has dealt with the AMF in several instances in his career.

Marc Lemieux, Principal, Lemieux Legal Services

Phone: (514)-987-1117

Email: marc@marclemieux.com

Website: marclemieux.com

Relevant specializations and experience: Marc is a bilingual lawyer with experience in banking, payments, and MSBs. He currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian MSB Association.

Michael Garellek, Associate, Gowlings LLP

Phone: 514-392-9421

Email: Michael.Garellek@gowlings.com

Website: www.gowlings.com

Relevant specializations and experience: Michael’s experience includes working directly with the AMF, as well as, dealing with the AMF on behalf of his financial services clients.

Need A Hand

If you’re not sure if the MSB Act applies to you, or need assistance in finding a respondent, please contact us.

The MSB Act on Respondents (Full Text From the MSB Act)

5. A licence application must be filed together with the fee determined by regulation and filed by a person acting as the business’s respondent for the purposes of this Act.

The respondent must

(0.1) be a director, officer or partner of the money-services business;

(1) be 18 years of age or over;

(2) not be under tutorship, curatorship or advisership;

(3) be domiciled in Québec or have a place of business or a place of work in Québec; and

(4) meet any other condition set by regulation.

The money-services business must give the respondent access, at the business’s head office and in all its establishments, to the information and documents needed to exercise the respondent’s functions.

The respondent for a money-services business that is not constituted under the laws of Québec and does not have its head office or an establishment in Québec need not be a director, officer or partner of the business but must be able to properly exercise a respondent’s functions with the Authority.

Insights From the 2014 CMSBA Conference

We were honoured to present at this year’s Canadian MSB Association (CMSBA) conference in Toronto. Speakers included representatives from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses (CFIB), money service businesses (MSBs), consultants, lawyers and technology service providers. Priced between CAD 200 and 250 (depending on membership status and the timing of the registration), the price of this annual event, which includes breakfast, lunch, a post event reception, an annual CMSBA membership and a training certificate is likely one of the most informative and reasonably priced resources for MSBs. We would like to thank the CMSBA for providing a top quality event.

The Big Disclaimer

The information that follows is based on our experience attending the conference, and the information that we feel will help our friends and clients the most. While there were many excellent sessions, we weren’t able to enjoy them all. If you feel that we’ve missed something vital, or misrepresented an important point, please feel free to contact us and we’ll do our best to correct it.

FINTRAC Exams Are Changing

Lisa Douglas of FINTRAC tackled an update on the regulators expectations with candor, diplomacy and even a sense of humour on occasion. Among the most important points for reporting entities was the implementation of the regulatory changes that came into effect in February of 2014, and changes to the types of testing that FINTRAC will be performing in examination:

Business Relationships: has the nature and purpose of the business relationship been documented? Has the customer been identified where there is a business relationship (and if not, are efforts to identify the customer documented)? Is ongoing monitoring in place?
Suspicious Activity: Do the policies and procedures reflect the right indicators for the business model (see FINTRAC’s Guideline 2 for a full list)? Is there activity that seems to be suspicious that was not reported? If so, are you able to explain objectively why the activity was not considered to be suspicious (and is the explanation backed up by documentation)?
Ongoing Monitoring: Are monitoring efforts documented? Is the monitoring for high-risk customers and business relationships different (in nature and frequency)?
Beneficial Ownership: Is there documentation that confirms beneficial ownership? If not, has Senior Officer been identified and is the customer classified as high risk?
Customer Information Updates: Is customer information being updated on a regular schedule according to the customer’s risk?
Quality Reporting: Are the reports that FINTRAC receives complete and accurate? Are all fields (including fields that aren’t mandatory) completed if you have the information on file?

Ms. Douglas received the most questions about applying an ‘objective standard’ to deciding whether or not there are reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing activity, and stressed that it is not enough to know that the activity is consistent for a customer over time if the activity could be indicative of money laundering or terrorist financing. This theme was echoed by Paul Burak of MNP LLP in his discussion of customer due diligence. In his illustrative example, Mr. Burak described a hotel that made large cash deposits with few credit card or debit card payments, in volumes that were out of synch with local tourist traffic. While the pattern of activity was consistent for the client over time, it did not make sense when an objective standard was applied.

There are Many More MSBs with ‘Zero Deficiencies’ Than MSBs with Penalties

Although there are several published administrative monetary penalties that have been published for MSBs, approximately 25% of MSBs examined between 2008 and 2014 have passed examinations with zero deficiencies. While this isn’t likely to reduce the stress that comes with preparing for an examination, the information (obtained from a recent access to information request that Outlier filed with FINTRAC) is important in understanding that the MSB industry has historically been more compliant than the headlines would have us believe. That said it’s always vital to take the time to prepare for your examination and ensure that all of the materials requested by FINTRAC are assembled and delivered on time. We’ve put together some free resources to help reporting entities get organized, available here.

We were fortunate enough to co-present on this topic with two very experienced lawyers, J. Bruce McMeekin and Tushar K. Pain. Both emphasized the importance of reaching out to a legal professional early if you may be facing an administrative monetary penalty, as well as the value of regular compliance testing (not just limited to the effectiveness reviews required every two years) to assess compliance and fix anything that may be offside.

Banking Remains an Issue for MSBs

Robert Osbourne of Grant & Thornton provided excellent insights on maintaining banking relationships, including requesting and account manager, and maintaining regular contact (rather than simply responding to issues or information requests). Despite recent public policy positions from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) warning against wholesale de-risking, few Canadian banks are currently accepting MSBs. Among those that we are aware are taking on MSB customers:

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC)
Bank of Montreal (BMO)
DirectCash Bank (DC)

There are additional financial institutions, including credit unions that offer accounts to MSBs, however many of these are not currently taking on new MSB customers. Access to banking is one of the issues that we’re likely to hear more about from both the CMSBA and the CFIB in the coming months.

Tools and Technology

The importance of tools and technology for recordkeeping and compliance management cannot be understated. The Canadian market is served by a number of great providers, and more solutions are being added on a regular basis. The solutions that are implemented should be well aligned with your business model and Risk Assessment. They should also be secure, in particular where sensitive or personal information (PI) is stored. Garry Clement of Clement Advisory Group emphasized how vulnerable the industry may be to cyber threats, and steps that MSBs can take to recognize threats and protect their data.

Digital Currency

Jillian Friedman of the Bitcoin Embassy (formerly, now she can be found at montrealtechlawyer.com) and Susan Han of Miller Thompson provided an overview of digital currency. While it was clear that many MSBs are interested in the potential that bitcoin and other digital currencies can offer, the same barriers to banking faced by MSBs are faced by digital currency companies in Canada. MSBs that deal in digital currency may face additional de-risking concerns with their banks. Zach Ramsay of CoinCulture, though not presenting, was on hand to offer clarification about the digital currency related services that may interest MSBs including bitcoin teller machines (BTMs) and bitcoin payment processing.

Need a Hand?

If you would like more information about the CMSA, including information about how to become a member, you can contact them here.

If you have questions about AML or ATF compliance, please contact us for more information.

Why We Believe In The Right To Business Banking

I remember my first thoughts on money services businesses (MSBs) very distinctly. Years ago, when I moved from being a banker to being a consultant, I thought of MSBs as being predatory and fly by night. I didn’t know much about MSBs, and I was hesitant to work with them as clients. Fortunately, a colleague determined to change my point of view, brought me to a meeting with one of her clients, a remittance company that served a particular ethnic community.

My colleague asked her client to walk me through the business model, and as the discussion progressed, I quickly understood that the MSB was offering many services that the banks were not – some of them free of charge. Not only was the MSB providing services in their customers’ native language, the fees were low and there were a slew of additional services like lawyer and employment agency referrals (all services in the customers’ native language). The office space was a bright and clean retail location and all of the staff seemed genuinely excited to be there. It was clear that I had misjudged MSBs (or at the very least, this MSB).

Over the years I’ve worked with many MSB clients and have come to understand that this was not a unique situation. In Canada we have many great MSBs that are providing services in nimble and efficient ways that truly meet the needs of their communities. My team and I have been able to help MSBs build compliance programs, risk assessments, training and complete effectiveness reviews, but the most common request that we’ve received is something that we’re simply not able to do: open a bank account.

From startups to MSB businesses that have been in existence for many years, opening a bank account (and keeping it open) is more difficult than staying in compliance with the law, or running a profitable business. Recently, we’ve also been approached by companies that deal in digital currencies like bitcoin with the same type of request. While we can certainly provide advice on how to approach the problem (see our blog on keeping your bank happy), we aren’t a bank and don’t have the power to compel banks to open accounts for our customers, or to keep them open. The lack of available banking facilities is deeply troubling to me, both as a Canadian entrepreneur and as a compliance expert.

Stifling Innovation

Recently, the Canadian Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce held sessions related to digital currency. One of the messages that was clear in all sessions was the disconnect between the traditional financial system (represented primarily by banks) and the emerging digital currency markets. While digital currency has come a long way, companies have difficulty operating using digital currency alone. Unfortunately, many of these companies are currently unbanked (including companies that have a history of profitability and companies that accept payment in digital currency – but do not sell digital currency to the public). While Canada is, in many ways, recognized as a hotbed of digital currency innovation, banking challenges are daunting to companies considering a Canadian presence.

While some laud the regulation of digital currencies expected to come into play following the Royal Assent of Bill C-31 earlier this year, it is noteworthy that this is unlikely to solve the existing banking issues faced by these companies. ‘Dealers in digital currency’ (a term that has yet to be fully defined) will be regulated as MSBs, and MSBs face very similar banking challenges despite being regulated entities. New MSB startups (including MSBs that aren’t dealing in digital currency) have great difficulty in obtaining and maintaining basic banking facilities.

The Risk of ‘De-Risking’

As an entrepreneur, it troubles me that companies that have followed all of the rules are denied the opportunity to innovate because they don’t have access to banking services. As a compliance professional, I’m equally troubled by the workarounds that I’ve seen in action. These have ranged from misrepresenting the nature of a company’s business to incorporating multiple companies that settle transactions between one another (or access banking services on one another’s behalf) to the use of personal bank accounts to operate businesses. In essence, accessing banking in a way that banking service providers don’t understand because providing accurate information is seen as putting the business at risk.

Banks and other banking service providers are heavily regulated, and their requirements include knowing their customers and understanding their customers’ transactions. MSBs and digital currency businesses are generally (effectively always) seen as being higher risk and requiring enhanced due diligence (EDD). There are few motivations for banking service providers to take on higher risk customers, in particular if the banking service provider cannot be certain that the account will be profitable. To this end, some banks have openly stated that they will not deal with MSBs or digital currency companies at all. Others charge screening fees (which can range up to several thousand dollars) required as part of the account application process, with no guarantee of an account. Most banks that offer accounts to these types of businesses charge fees (in addition to regular banking fees) in order to maintain accounts.

Even when an MSB or digital currency company opens a bank account, there is the possibility that the banking service provider will close the account (referred to in the banking community as “de-marketing” or “de-risking”) with very little notice. Consequently, there is very little incentive for MSBs or digital currency companies to be transparent with their banking service providers. These businesses need bank accounts in order to thrive, and they don’t perceive themselves as being able to access banking services by being open and transparent. This creates a situation wherein many companies operate “under the radar,” accessing banking services without providing a fulsome understanding of their business or transactions.

In these situations, banking service providers are not meeting their regulatory obligations as they don’t truly know their customer, nor understand their transactions. Many financial institutions have mechanisms in place to detect undeclared MSB activity and /or digital currency related activity. While it’s not possible to say with certainty how effective these controls are, my experience would suggest that the number of financial institutions that are dealing with MSBs and digital currency businesses is close to 100% (regardless of the policies or controls in place). In other words, de-risking MSBs today is about as effective as the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 1920s…

Not Just A Canadian Issue

Businesses across the globe are facing similar issues, and international groups such as the World Bank have become more vocal in proposing solutions. In their 2013 Special-Purpose Note titled “Barriers to Access to Payment Systems in Sending Countries and Proposed Solutions,” the World Bank’s Global Remittances Working Group (GRWG) suggest five solutions, including the creation of banks focussed on serving money transfer businesses. The issue was raised again during Global Payments Week in New York, where it was noted that it has been brought to the attention of the G20 Ministers of Finance. While the issue is not uniquely Canadian, we believe that Canada could become a world leader in implementing a solution.

Solving The Problem

We believe that the solution to mitigating the risk related to MSB and digital currency transactions is not de-risking. This strategy only penalizes honest companies and creates an environment of mistrust. We believe that all Canadian businesses should have a right to basic banking services, in the same way that individuals are entitled to these services. In order for this to be true, businesses would need to be included in the rules set out in the Access to Basic Banking Services Regulations under the Bank Act, or similar legislation.

The risk posed by MSBs and digital currency businesses should be assessed and managed. This can only occur where these companies understand that revealing the nature of their business will not lead to “de-risking,” provided that the business is operating within the parameters set out by Canadian law (including the requirement for MSBs to be registered with FINTRAC in Canada and licensed by the AMF in Quebec). While the cost of managing related risks and performing enhanced due diligence exist, the fees related to MSB and digital currency accounts should not be so unreasonably high as to prevent access for smaller companies.

We’re Not Lobbyists, But…

Canada’s 2014 Economic Action Plan mentions “universal banking.” The website reads: “Universal access to basic banking is a cornerstone of Canada’s financial sector in which Canadians can take pride.” We’re working with industry groups to spread the message. We believe that universal banking should apply not only to individuals, but to the Canadian organizations that are innovating and helping to make Canada great.

What You Can Do

If you believe in the right to business banking, as we do, we encourage you to contact your Member of Parliament to share your thoughts.

If you own a business in Canada, you can also contact the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses (CFIB) to request action on this initiative. CFIB has been a powerful lobbying force for Canadian businesses in the past, and we have discussed these issues with them. Action is most likely when it is clearly supported by their membership.

MSBs and those that work with MSBs may also consider contacting the Canadian MSB Association (CMSBA) to learn about their current initiatives. The CMSBA represents the interests of Canadian MSBs, in addition to providing training and conferences (the next of which takes place November 18th in Toronto).

Contact Us

You can contact Outlier at any time using our online form or contact the author directly by emailing amber@outliercanada.com.

Does Québec MSB Licensing Apply to Me?

We recently sought clarification from the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Québec’s provincial regulator, on when money services businesses (MSBs) need to be licensed in Québec. The Québec licensing process is completely separate from the federal MSB registration with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC). The full text of the response that we received appears below this blog entry.

Are You Required To Be Licensed in Québec?

To determine whether or not you need to be licensed in Québec, we’ve developed a chart:

If you are offering any of the defined MSB services to people of organizations in Québec (including via the web) you are expected to be licensed as an MSB in that province.

The AMF has announced that digital currency exchanges and ATMs are also regulated under the MSB Act.

How Can You Become Licensed And What Does It Cost?

Before you apply for an MSB license, you must obtain a Québec Enterprise Number from the Enterprise Registrar. This is a unique numeric identifier that you will use when dealing with Québec government agencies and business partners. The registration process will cost approximately CAD 34.00 and will require you to provide documents such as your articles of incorporation. We recommend that you speak with your tax professional about the implications of registering as an enterprise in Québec, as it is likely that you will need to consider this in future tax filings. You can access the registration site here.

Next, you’ll need to apply for your Québec MSB license. The AMF has developed a user guide that explains the process in plain language. You must have a respondent (someone acting on your behalf) in the province of Québec. If you do not have any physical operations in Québec, the respondent can be a third party that you trust, such as a lawyer, paralegal, accountant, consultant or other professional that will act on your behalf. A licensing fee of CAD 650.00 applies to each category of product or service that you offer (except for ATMs). This means that the total fee for this stage will range from CAD 650.00 to CAD 2600.00.

In addition, MSBs that operate ATMs will be required to pay a fee of CAD 216.00 per ATM machine (located in the province of Québec) later in the process.

In addition to these fees, specific security clearance fees are required. These include CAD 121.00 for the enterprise and each of the following (that apply to your business):

The Respondent;
Officers;
Directors;
Partners;
Branch managers;
Any person or entity who directly or indirectly owns or controls the money-services business;
Employees working in Québec (unless they are not involved in any of the MSB business);
Mandataries (who are responsible for the money services offered on behalf of the MSB);
Officers of the mandataries;
Any lender that is not a financial institution; and
For any lender that is not a financial institution or a natural person, lender is not a natural person, its officers, directors or partners.

You must obtain consent and information from each of these individuals in order to complete the security clearance process. You must also assemble and submit corporate documents for your MSB, including:

Business plan and description of business activities;
Financial statements;
Document showing legal structure of the business;
Document confirming appointment of respondent; and
Document showing corporate structure of the business.

You should expect the application process to take six to eight weeks if all of the forms are filled out completely and correctly. It can take significantly longer if your applications are missing information or signatures. We recommend looking over all of your documents carefully before you submit them and reaching out proactively to the AMF if you have questions about how to complete the application forms.

Need A Hand?

Many MSBs have successfully gone through this process on their own (you don’t need to hire a lawyer or consultant), but if you want a hand assembling your package and communicating with the AMF we’re happy to assist – please contact us.

Full Text Of AMF Response

As discussed earlier, any entity who executes from Québec or makes available the following money services for the people of Québec has to submit an application in order to have the Autorité des marchés financiers release a Money services business (MSB) licence:

Currency exchange;
Funds transfer (over the counter or internet);
Issue / redemption of traveller’s cheque, money order, bank drafts.
Cheque cashing
Operation of ATM

A corporation does not have to have an establishment, an address, a post office box or even a telephone line in Québec for it to be considered as carrying an activity in Québec as long as it conducts business for a profit. It is often the case for corporations acting in the funds transfer category.

The first step towards registration for a MSB should first be registration as a corporate entity with the Registraire des entreprises (http://www.registreentreprises.gouv.qc.ca/). This will provide a corporation number (NEQ) to the registrant that will be required for application purposes.

Afterwards will come the submission of the E-services access form by its appointed respondent (see section 5 of the MSB Act) along with a payment of 614$ for each money services category to appear on the licence.

All info and documentation is available on our website (www.lautorite.qc.ca).

Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies