Warning Savings protection Warning The AMF and the ACPR warn the public against the activities of several entities offering investments in Forex and in crypto-assets derivatives in France without being authorized to do so

1.1 Fri 29/10/2021 - 12:00 Reference texts article 223-1 du règlement général de l’AMF Book 1 Recommendation Closing of the 2021 financial statements and financial statements examination work Closing of the 2021…

In the Sunday Book Review, Tom Fox considers books that would interest the compliance professional, the business executive, or anyone who might be curious. These could be books about business, compliance, history, leadership, current events, or anything else that might interest Tom. Today, we look at five books that help to explain the current trade, tariff, and sanctions situation. • Why Politicians Lie About Trade: … and What You Need to Know About It by Dmitry Grozoubinski • Trade Wars Are...By: Thomas Fox - Compliance Evangelist

The FCA has highlighted that banks and building societies can improve how they treat customers affected by bereavement or registering a power of attorney. Since the introduction of the Consumer Duty, some firms are making a real difference with clear policies and procedures and actively using data to better identify needs and support their customers. However, some firms’ staff are unclear on the actions they need to take and how quickly. In some cases, this meant some individuals and their representatives were unable to access funds to pay essential bills.There were examples of customers who struggled to get support during an emergency, such as a mental health crisis, adding to their distress.The regulator has published good and poor practice to help firms provide the right support by being adaptable and putting consumers’ needs at the forefront of everything they do, which is consistent with the Consumer Duty. This multi-firm review fed into the wider work on how financial services firms are treating vulnerable consumers but also has specific findings that are relevant for banks and building societies.Emad Aladhal, Director of Retail Banking, said:'Dealing with a bereavement or setting up a power of attorney can often be stressful and emotional. When banks and building societies get it right for their customers they can make a real difference at a difficult time. But when they fail to recognise and respond to customers who need more help, it adds to the stress. All firms should consider where they can make improvements.'Our message to consumers is this - if you need to notify your banking provider about a bereavement or a power of attorney, speak to them about how they can support you and meet your needs.'The FCA issued guidance to help financial services firms support consumers in vulnerable circumstances in 2021 and introduced the Consumer Duty in 2023, which requires firms to deliver good outcomes for all customers, including those in vulnerable circumstances.As part of our five-year strategy, the FCA will focus on helping consumers navigate their financial lives and make better informed financial decisions, and the Consumer Duty will be integral to how firms treat their customers.Notes to editorsRead Retail banks’ treatment of customers in vulnerable circumstances Multi-firm Review: good practice and areas for improvement.This builds on our review of life insurers’ bereavement claim processes.The FCA’s wider review on vulnerability.The FCA has written to individual firms involved in the review to provide specific feedback.

With less than five months to go until the new UK failure to prevent fraud offence comes into force on 1 September 2025, many organisations are conducting risk assessments and enhancing anti-fraud policies and procedures with a view to preventing fraud and providing themselves with a defence should this be necessary.  The new offence will apply to organisations wherever they are located (including outside the UK), where a fraud is committed which has some nexus to the UK. The only defence for an organisation will be to have “reasonable procedures” in place to prevent fraud. More details on the new offence, including the underlying fraud offences covered, are set out here. In a recent speech the SFO Director Nick Ephgrave emphasised that the SFO is looking to prosecute the offence, and noted that organisations should ensure their procedures are in place by September: “Come September, if they haven’t sorted themselves out, we’re coming after them. That’s the message I’ll be delivering…I’m very, very keen to prosecute someone for that offence. We can’t sit with the statute books gathering dust, someone needs to feel the bite.” Whilst, in practice, many organisations will (and should) be continuing to enhance their policies and procedures on an ongoing basis, it is important that organisations have taken significant steps ahead of September to implement “reasonable procedures”, and that there is a clear plan for further review (and a process for making enhancements, should those be required) in future. We will be publishing a series of articles on key steps to take ahead of September. In this article we explore one of the first steps in preparing for the new offence: conducting a risk assessment. Part 1: Risk assessments As the Home Office’s November 2024 guidance (the HO Guidance) and UK Finance’s February 2025 guidance (the UKF Guidance) (together the Guidance) acknowledge, organisations (particularly those in the financial services and other regulated sectors) may already have existing risk assessment frameworks in place that can be adapted to address the risks presented by the new offence. Our expectation is that conducting a failure to prevent fraud risk assessment will take some time – the Home Office issued an impact assessment (see here) in November 2022 which estimated that risk assessments should take organisations between c.100-130 hours to prepare. There are a number of considerations to work through when an organisation is assessing its approach to risk assessments. We explore each of these below. 1. Deciding who will conduct and oversee the risk assessment Jurisdictional scope: the new offence will apply to any organisation and could arise where a fraud offence is committed with a connection to the UK (e.g. because a meeting is held or communication is made in the UK) or where there are victims in the UK (which could include investors and / or counterparties) or, in some cases, where there is a gain or loss in the UK. This means that whether an organisation is subject to the offence will vary depending on the specific circumstances in which the fraud takes place (and so could shift from transaction to transaction, or as its investor profile changes). In addition to the jurisdictional scope question, organisations need to decide whether to approach implementation on a global or local scale.  -Multinational organisations may choose to conduct risk assessments and enhance fraud procedures on a global basis (although in the short term it may make sense to focus efforts on UK entities and other entities with a UK nexus). Ownership: it is rare that a single function can effectively conduct the failure to prevent fraud risk assessment or enhance / implement the requisite procedures to ensure compliance with the new offence on its own. Input from stakeholders across the organisation is likely to be required to fully understand the scenarios in which fraud risks could arise in practice. We have helped clients put in place cross-functional working groups to obtain input from a variety of different business units including finance, marketing, sales, procurement, legal, sustainability, ethics/compliance and internal audit. Oversight by senior management: the Guidance suggests it may be appropriate that some level of approval of the risk assessment should be given by senior management/the Board and that there should be designated responsibility for horizon scanning for new fraud risks and approving the assessment of risk. We would recommend that the approach taken in conducting a risk assessment is agreed at a senior level at the outset, with appropriate consideration given to resource allocation, coordination (e.g. via a working group) and reporting. There should be a specific budget and resources for undertaking the risk assessment as well as making relevant enhancements to procedures. Level of external input: it is worth considering the level of support required from external  providers to undertake risk assessment(s). Although much of the knowledge required to conduct the risk assessment will be held internally, many organisations will need some level of external legal support including to work through the details of the offences and how they can be committed in practice, navigating some of the core scoping questions such as those relating to the definition of associated persons and questions of territoriality, and benchmarking against peer organisations. 2. Understanding the relevant risk assessments already in place; and what they do and do not cover Most organisations (particularly those in the financial services and other regulated sectors) have some kind of risk assessment in place that covers fraud.  Many of these existing risk assessments focus on cases where the organisation is a victim of fraud (i.e. “inward fraud”) rather than addressing fraud committed by Associated Persons for the benefit of the organisation or its clients (i.e. “outward fraud”). Appreciating this distinction is essential in terms of ensuring the risk assessment is fit for purpose. 3. Assessing the likelihood of the underlying fraud offences arising It is crucial that those undertaking the risk assessment and enhancing anti-fraud procedures understand the underlying offences in sufficient detail. The offences are complex (much more so than, for example, those under the UK Bribery Act) and often the precise conduct covered by the offence is not obvious from the shorthand description set out in the relevant legislation. Further, there are numerous “grey areas” around whether certain conduct would meet the relevant standard of dishonesty (a defining characteristic of nearly all of the underlying offences) which need to be thought through. Given these challenges, many clients have found it useful to break down each offence into its constituent elements and to bring these to life with examples of how each offence could potentially be committed in practice in their sector (and, as set out below, in each different business unit or support function or by their associated persons). Once the underlying offences are fully understood by those participating in the risk assessment process, it is then important to assess how they could arise. The Guidance suggests as a starting point identifying different types of Associated Person and then for “nominated risk owners” to consider circumstances in which those associated person might attempt fraud (and whether there are particular types of fraud offence, e.g. false accounting or abuse of position which are more likely to be committed by particular types of Associated Persons). A strategy we have seen work well to put structure around this is to have each business head lead an appropriate discussion about the offences within their function and this may be facilitated by an internal questionnaire. The business head can then feed back to the working group those scenarios which have been identified as risk areas and any relevant controls. This enables the organisation to build up one document setting out risk areas across the business for each underlying offence and will also help to promote consistency across different business lines and functions.  An element of cross fertilisation with different internal teams learning from each other’s examples can also be helpful.  For organisations starting their risk assessments now, it may make sense to determine, and focus in the first instance on, areas of highest risk in order to identify priority programme enhancements (see below). 4. Conducting a ”gap analysis” to assess what policies and procedures are already in place and identify any areas for enhancement It is important to understand the extent to which existing policies or procedures (whether fraud specific or otherwise) can be adapted or supplemented. Many organisations will already have in place policies, procedures and controls that can be leveraged (e.g. third-party due diligence and monitoring processes related to bribery and corruption and controls around financial reporting and approval of marketing materials). Many clients have found it useful to identify, in relation to each offence and the scenarios which have been identified, relevant controls that are in place. Those controls can then be reviewed to determine whether there are any “gaps” and to identify where enhancements may be required. An enhancement and prioritisation plan can then be drawn up based on the output of this work.  This exercise is also useful in drawing together all the relevant internal anti-fraud procedures so that there is a central record of these that could be deployed as part of any defence strategy if needed.  5. Producing a written risk assessment and agreeing when it will be reconsidered Whilst the primary purpose of anti-fraud procedures is, of course, to stop fraud happening in the first place, it is also crucial that an organisation can defend itself if allegations of fraud are raised and it is facing a criminal investigation (or seeking to persuade criminal authorities not to investigate) or alternatively a regulatory investigation. This means the organisation’s procedures, including the risk assessment, need to be documented carefully. To defend procedures effectively requires contemporaneous documentation of the decisions made and steps taken in conducting a risk assessment, including the rationale for those decisions. For example, where an offence arises in an area of a business which was deprioritised in light of the risk assessment, following a risk-based approach it will be important to be able to provide contemporaneous evidence of the rationale for that decision. This is particularly important where the organisation will not have finalised its anti-fraud procedures by September. How often should the risk assessment be refreshed? The guidance states that the risk assessment should be dynamic and kept under regular review, either annually or bi-annually. Risk assessments should be refreshed in the interim as the business (and risks faced by the business) change – and in light of any fraud issues identified either internally or where knowledge of peer experience is available. We are helping various organisations prepare for this change: if you would like to discuss how we can help, please get in touch.

Milan’s Insurance Landscape  

11 April 2025 ICMA welcomes the opportunity to comment on IOSCO’s Consultation Report on Artificial Intelligence in Capital Markets: Use Cases, Risks, and Challenges. This response reflects the views of the AI in Capital Markets Working Group.ICMA values the work IOSCO is doing to provide more public intelligence on the use of AI in capital markets, and in general, aligns with the key findings of the report, including that benefits and risks of AI in financial services are highly dependent on the type of AI technology used, how it is developed and for what purpose.ICMA also agrees that, in some cases, the terminology used to discuss AI has not always been clear, and certain terms have been used to cover a multitude of different aspects of AI with distinctive and different qualities. ICMA remains available to assist with any efforts made to address these challenges, such as defining a set of boundaries to clarify some of the terminology, to work towards a more productive and consistent global dialogue on the topic.ICMA members note that models, such as LLM’s and others used in Gen AI systems, can require significant computational resources and energy consumption in both their training and usage. Likewise, IOSCO also highlights the large amounts of memory required to store LLM’s, and the subsequent contribution AI usage might make to environmental risks. Further exploration on this topic would be of particular interest to the debt capital markets industry, due to the cross-cutting theme of ESG.It may also be beneficial for IOSCO to consider establishing a set of minimum general principles governing AI. IOSCO’s composition of global financial service regulators, in addition to recent guidance and regulatory initiatives on the topic of AI, such as ESMA’s 2024 guidance to firms using AI in investment services and HKSAR’s policy statement on responsible AI in the financial sector, provide an opportunity for IOSCO to further reflect on common themes and facilitate convergence at an international level between regulators in the financial sector.View the response.

on 21 february 2025, the financial action task force (fatf) released significant updates regarding jurisdictions under increased monitoring and high-risk jurisdictions subject to a call for action. these updates highlight global efforts to improve anti-money laundering (aml), combating the financing of terrorism (cft), and counter-proliferation financing (cpf) measures. below are the key updates on jurisdictions under increased monitoring and high-risk jurisdictions: philippines removedthe philippines has successfully strengthened its aml/cft framework and is no longer under fatf's increased monitoring. nepal and lao pdr addedthese countries are now monitored as they address deficiencies in their aml/cft systems. high-risk jurisdictionsthe fatf calls for countermeasures against democratic people's republic of korea and iran for their failure to address systemic risks, while myanmarremains under scrutiny, requiring enhanced due diligence. maintaining vigilance in financial systems the fatf’s updates highlight ongoing efforts to strengthen global financial integrity, urging member states to balance rigorous compliance with the unimpeded flow of legitimate humanitarian and financial activities. these measures ensure a risk-based approach while minimising disruptions to non-profit operations, remittances, and relief efforts. these developments underscore the critical need for concerted global efforts in combating financial crimes. institutions operating in affected jurisdictions must remain informed and compliant, ensuring robust risk management strategies in line with international standards. fatf publications can be accessed here and here.

Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs 13 der Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber Belarus (SR 946.231.116.9) publiziert.

Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Unauthorised Investment Business Firm / Virtual Asset Service Provider Unauthorised Firm Name Sybbex Limited Website  www.sybbex.com Email addresses used support@sybbex.comfinance@sybbex.com Phone numbers used +41 52366658 +353 1 960 9152 Authorisation in Ireland This firm is not authorised to provide investment services or virtual asset services in Ireland.  Notes:Any person wishing to contact the Central Bank with information regarding such firms / persons may telephone (01) 224 5800 or report an unauthorised firm directly to the Central Bank.For more information on how to protect yourself from financial scams, please visit www.centralbank.ie/financialscams The name of the above firm is published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013

The European Banking Authority (EBA) published today an updated list of institutions, which have a reporting obligation for the purpose of the 2025 EU supervisory benchmarking exercise. The EBA will be conducting the 2025 benchmarking exercise on a sample of 110 institutions from 16 countries across the EU and the European Economic Area. The EBA runs this exercise leveraging on established data collection procedures and formats of regular supervisory reporting and assists Competent Authorities in assessing the quality of internal approaches used to calculate risk weighted exposure amounts.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS AUTHORITY, PUBLISHED IN APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 78 OF THE LAW OF 21 NOVEMBER 2017Trading in the financial instruments of BIOSENIC, ISIN BE0974280126, on Euronext Brussels will re-open on 08/04/2025 at 12:30 CET.

NFA announced today that it has ordered Futu Futures Inc. (Futu) to pay a $100,000 fine. Futu is a futures commission merchant Member of NFA located in Jersey City, New Jersey.