header-logo header-logo

12 December 2022
Issue: 8007 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Regulatory , Banking , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

Bank fined for failures in AML oversight & management

Santander UK has been fined £107m for ‘serious and persistent’ gaps in its anti-money laundering (AML) controls on business banking customers.

The bank qualified for a 30% discount (from almost £154m) because it did not dispute the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) findings and agreed to settle. The FCA found the UK part of the bank failed to properly oversee and manage its AML systems between 31 December 2012 and 18 October 2017. It had ineffective systems to verify the information provided by customers about the business they would be doing, and failed to properly monitor the money customers told them would be going through their accounts compared with what was being deposited.

In one case, a new customer opened an account as a small translations business with expected monthly deposits of £5,000. Within six months it was receiving millions in deposits, and swiftly transferring the money to separate accounts. The FCA also found that, while the account was recommended for closure by the bank’s own AML team in March 2014, poor processes and structures meant this was not acted on until September 2015, by which time millions of pounds had been transferred through the account.

The FCA found several other accounts where there was a serious money laundering risk, as well as examples of the bank failing to deal promptly with ‘red flags’ associated with suspicious activity.

Mark Steward, an executive director at the FCA, said Santander’s ‘poor management… created a prolonged and severe risk of money laundering and financial crime’.

The FCA has previously fined Standard Chartered Bank £102m in 2019 for AML breaches in two high-risk areas. Last December, it fined HSBC nearly £64m for serious weaknesses in monitoring systems over an eight-year period, and an FCA investigation led to NatWest being fined £264m in the same month at Southwark Crown Court for three AML offences.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll