MONEY LAUNDERER by Kenneth Rijock
I found that I liked the compliance job very much; it was truly the flip side of my life as a money launderer. Whereas, in my earlier life, I was trying to move the proceeds of crime into the financial system, as a compliance officer my task was to deny the entry of which I believed to be criminal funds, funds whose provenance were suspicious, or funds from entities whose beneficial ownership could not established by the preponderance of the evidence. I used very objective standards in enhanced due diligence investigations, and demanded complete cooperation from new accounts/ customer relationship/sales staff, who received a short list from me of the exact documents and information we needed to approve the high-risk clients. At times, the staff who stood to gain substantially from our approval of their client would seek to influence me, or even take proactive steps to circumvent compliance, but I usually caught them in the act when I verified the information through my own devices. Naturally, once their subterfuge had been exposed, the staff members became quite sheepish, but never apologetic. They wanted those clients accepted by compliance, notwithstanding their dodgy nature. Did they resent me? You bet they did, but they also came to respect me, because I was totally on their side if the client passed muster.
- I had a rule about corporations: any company shareholder of ten (10%) per cent or more of the stock was subject to due diligence enquiry, just like the principal officers and directors. Some of the staff began quietly advising clients to form companies, and give themselves only nine (9%) of the corporation, and thus fall below my floor for enquiries. I began to notice that a number of new companies were showing up with all shareholders having nine per cent of the stock, not just one or two in a particular corporation. It was then I realised that I was being played. I didn't need to ask around, because the laws of probability made this development impossible, and as a former lawyer who formed corporations on a daily basis, I know that such a small amount of ownership, which provided only a tiny portion of corporate profits, was not a desirable event for investors in a closely-held corporation. I then dropped my minimum ownership perentage for due diligence to a mere five (5%) per cent. That worked, because dodgy clients could not easily round up more than the twenty five persons needed to hold four per cent or less. I never found out who started that tactic, but I never saw any later attempts to go under my new, very minimal five per cent rule.
- Some states had special statutes regarding certain investments, or the firm was not qualified to do business in other states. Either way, certain states were red-lined, meaning that residents of those states could not become clients. Of course, I had never known some of the more aggressive members of the sales/customer relationship staff to let a little thing like the law to stop them. Little tricks were commonly practised, such as: use the client's vacation home address, which was in a state where we did business, or get the client to purchase a mobile phone elsewhere and use that as his number, coupled with a private postal firm's convenience address. It got so I was forced to verify all addresses by demanding copies of current drivers licenses, electric company bills, and other current proof of residence, and then to verify the telephone numbers by using the Internet websites allowing reverse lookup, and by ensuring that clients didn't use commercial addresses in suitable states. I also verified residency by contacting the clients' place of employment, tactfully, and by looking at a copy of the clients' cheques.
I never took these tactics personally, but I did remember which staff member or members had participated in clever measures designed to hide the truth and cause me to approve a client through trickery. They had what they perceived their jobs to be; to push through client business, irrespective of the qualifications of the client. My job was to stop those unsatisfactory clients cold in their tracks. Were they often angry when I shut down a potentially lucrative client? Of course, but they were just as quick to bring in another, hardly missing a beat. That's what sales is all about; production.
I employed my own risk-based system, based upon the following:
- Country Risk: Prospective clients from drug-producing and drug-transit countries were the highest risk, followed by those from offshore financial centres, and countries with extremely high rates of corruption. Next came the countries where the rule of law was rarely followed; the minimum risk were clients from EU countries with adequate AML legislation.
- Occupational Risk: Individuals with no verifiable occupation or profession were highest risk, followed by investors, then employees from third-world countries where verification could not be accomplished. Employees or business owners whose information I could verify were the lowest risk.
- Source of Funds Risk: Impossible to verify funds cases were unacceptable levels of risk; verified through Internet, then verified through references medium risk; funds that a client could have earned during his or her working life, given his occupation and age, were considered minimal risk.
- PEP Risk: Present or former government officials, military officers, officers of government-controlled or charitable organisations, or non-profits were all subject to extremely detailed Source of Funds requirements.
Next Week: How I solved the knotty problems of corporate entities, trusts, foundations, and various unusual or alternative vehicles.
The facts and opinions stated in this article are those of the author and not those of World-Check. World-Check does not warrant the accuracy of any facts and opinions stated in this article, does not endorse them, and accepts no responsibility for them.
Read more in this exciting series



