FIU: Put limit on cash transactions » EntornoInteligente

FIU: Put limit on cash transactions

Entornointeligente.com /

The re­port, which cov­ers the pe­ri­od from Oc­to­ber 1, 2019, to Sep­tem­ber 30, 2020, saw a record num­ber of sus­pect fi­nan­cial trans­ac­tions re­ports to the FIU

The change over in the $100 notes from cot­ton to poly­mer led to a huge in­crease in the amount of sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions re­port­ed to the Fi­nan­cial In­tel­li­gence Unit of Trinidad and To­ba­go (FI­UTT) and shows the need for changes in the leg­is­la­tion to lim­it cash trans­ac­tions.

Act­ing Di­rec­tor of the Fi­nan­cial In­tel­li­gence Unit’s Nigel Stod­dard said in the FI­UTT An­nu­al Re­port that last year’s de­mon­eti­sa­tion process in­creased the need for the in­tro­duc­tion of new reg­u­la­tions con­cern­ing busi­ness trans­ac­tions in­volv­ing sig­nif­i­cant amounts of cash.

“It is ev­i­dent, that com­ing out of the de­mon­eti­sa­tion ex­er­cise, the amount of cash ex­changed or at­tempt­ed to be ex­changed, lacked trans­paren­cy in cer­tain in­stances to prop­er­ly iden­ti­fy their source of funds,” he said, “There­fore, such cash-in­ten­sive en­vi­ron­ments in­crease the risk of mon­ey laun­der­ing and fa­cil­i­tate crim­i­nal con­duct. Thus, the FI­UTT con­tin­ues to rec­om­mend that the au­thor­i­ties give se­ri­ous con­sid­er­a­tion to in­tro­duc­ing some form of cash thresh­old when con­duct­ing busi­ness trans­ac­tions.”

The fact that the de­mon­eti­sa­tion process fea­tured sig­nif­i­cant­ly in re­ports to the FIU was al­so ac­knowl­edged by Min­is­ter of Fi­nance Colm Im­bert as he ad­dressed the Par­lia­ment in March.

Dur­ing his ad­dress to the Par­lia­ment, Im­bert re­vealed the vast ma­jor­i­ty of re­ports to the FIU were con­nect­ed to tax eva­sion and mon­ey laun­der­ing.

The most com­mon sus­pect­ed crim­i­nal con­duct were tax eva­sion (539), mon­ey laun­der­ing (530), sus­pi­cious fi­nan­cial ac­tiv­i­ty (401), fraud (205) and drug traf­fick­ing (92). These five sus­pect­ed crim­i­nal con­duct ac­count­ed for 97 per cent of the to­tal num­ber of Sus­pi­cious Trans­ac­tion Re­ports/Sus­pi­cious Ac­tiv­i­ty Re­ports sub­mit­ted and 99.89 per cent of the to­tal mon­e­tary val­ue of all Sus­pi­cious Trans­ac­tion Re­ports/Sus­pi­cious Ac­tiv­i­ty Re­ports sub­mit­ted,” the Fi­nance Min­is­ter said in his state­ment to the Par­lia­ment.

Al­most a year af­ter the in­tro­duc­tion of the new poly­mer $100 notes, in­stances of sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions re­lat­ed to the old cot­ton note con­tin­ued to be re­port­ed to the FI­UTT.

The re­port, which cov­ers the pe­ri­od from Oc­to­ber 1, 2019, to Sep­tem­ber 30, 2020, saw a record num­ber of sus­pect fi­nan­cial trans­ac­tions re­ports to the FIU.

Stod­dard said, “At the op­er­a­tional lev­el, the FI­UTT re­ceived more STRs/SARs in this re­port­ing year, in­deed the most it has re­ceived through­out its ten years’ ex­is­tence. The FI­UTT re­ceived a to­tal of 1,831 STRs/SARs which rep­re­sent­ed a sig­nif­i­cant in­crease of 80 perc cent over the 1,019 STRs/SARs re­ceived in the pre­vi­ous re­port­ing pe­ri­od.”

These 1831 re­ports amount­ed to al­most $27 bil­lion dol­lars in shod­dy trans­ac­tions.

He di­rect­ly con­nect­ed this in­crease of re­ports to the change of the blue note, as over two fifths of the re­ports record­ed dur­ing that pe­ri­od were con­nect­ed to the changeover.

The new poly­mer note was in­tro­duced on De­cem­ber 9, 2019 while the old $100 bill of­fi­cial­ly lost val­ue as of Jan­u­ary 1, 2020. The new notes were hasti­ly in­tro­duced as a na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty mea­sure.

Cit­i­zens were then giv­en un­til March 30, 2020 to ex­change the old notes with a grace pe­ri­od giv­en to na­tion­als who could prove they were out of the coun­try and un­able to present their notes for ex­change by the dead­line.

The in­crease in STRs/SARS sub­mis­sions can be pri­mar­i­ly as­so­ci­at­ed with the de­mon­eti­sa­tion of the cot­ton-based one-hun­dred-dol­lar bill process. 750 STRs/SARs or 41 per cent were re­ceived which were re­lat­ed to the de­mon­eti­sa­tion process. It must be not­ed, the FI­UTT is cur­rent­ly still re­ceiv­ing STRs/SARs from Re­port­ing En­ti­ties re­lat­ed to the de­mon­eti­sa­tion process,” he said.

The re­port re­vealed that the num­ber of mon­ey laun­der­ing re­ports al­most dou­bled last year, as 286 in­stances of mon­ey laun­der­ing were brought be­fore the FIU the year pri­or. This rep­re­sent­ed a 185 per cent in­crease.

While there was an in­crease in re­ports, the FIU al­so record­ed an in­crease in the num­ber of sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions stopped by re­port­ing en­ti­ties with 314 in 2020 com­pared to 86 in 2019.

Not sur­pris­ing­ly, the emer­gence of sev­er­al “sou sous” last year be­came a top­ic with­in the re­port as they were sev­er­al in­stances of fraud­u­lent ac­tiv­i­ty con­nect­ed to these arrange­ments, which be­came more and more preva­lent from mid-2020 with many at­tract­ed to the high pay­outs promised par­tic­u­lar­ly in the midst of em­ploy­ment un­cer­tain­ty prompt­ed by the pan­dem­ic.

The re­port ac­knowl­edged the in­creas­ing preva­lence of on­line scams and the ponzi/pyra­mid scheme phe­nom­e­non’ as it stat­ed, “There was al­so a not­ed in­crease in the in­ci­dence of ponzi/pyra­mid schemes be­ing op­er­at­ed un­der the guise of “non-tra­di­tion­al sou-sou” and op­er­at­ed as “in­vest­ments” schemes with the names of “Bless­ing Loom”, “Giv­ing Cir­cle” and “Bless­ing Bank” to name a few. “

Ac­cord­ing to the FIU, there were sev­er­al ro­mance scams tak­ing place, where­by in­di­vid­u­als were be­ing lured in­to pur­port­ed “re­la­tion­ships” so as to de­fraud them. This the re­port said, be­came more preva­lent as more peo­ple turned to so­cial me­dia in the pan­dem­ic.

The FIU an­nu­al re­port al­so ac­knowl­edged a 215 per cent in­crease in Sus­pi­cious Trans­ac­tion/Sus­pi­cious Ac­tiv­i­ty Re­ports (STR/SAR) sub­mis­sions by Re­port­ing En­ti­ties, ris­ing to 1516 com­pared to the 482 re­port­ed a year pri­or.

Stod­dard not­ed that there was al­so an in­crease in the mon­e­tary val­ue of these re­ports.

The mon­e­tary val­ue of STR/SAR sub­mis­sions is TT$27,013,069,082; a dra­mat­ic in­crease from TT$1,777,596,583 in the pre­vi­ous re­port­ing pe­ri­od. The com­plet­ed sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions ac­count­ed for 1,517 STRs/SARs with a mon­e­tary val­ue of TT$884,434,198. How­ev­er, the at­tempt­ed sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions, which was on­ly 314 STRs/SARs had a mon­e­tary val­ue of TT$26,128,634,884, a 2,710 per cent in­crease over the pre­vi­ous re­port­ing pe­ri­od,” said the FIU’s act­ing di­rec­tor.

He ex­plained, “While the num­ber of at­tempt­ed sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions is sig­nif­i­cant­ly less than the com­plet­ed sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions as stat­ed above, the main rea­son for the TT$26 Bil­lion in at­tempt­ed sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions are cus­tomers ap­proach­ing the Banks with sus­pect­ed fraud­u­lent con­tracts and pend­ing in­com­ing wire trans­fers. These ap­proach­es to the Banks by the cus­tomers are usu­al­ly based on emails re­ceived from un­known per­sons promis­ing huge fi­nan­cial gains in for­eign cur­ren­cies.”

Analy­sis of the fig­ures in­deed re­vealed that the vast ma­jor­i­ty of the sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions in­deed were con­duct­ed in banks. 1289 of those flagged were record­ed in banks with 1057 of those trans­ac­tions ac­tu­al­ly be­ing com­plet­ed.

Cen­tral Trinidad (Ch­agua­nas/Cou­va/Cunu­pia) record­ed the high­est num­ber of sus­pi­cious trans­ac­tions for the pe­ri­od with 542, fol­lowed by Trinidad’s cities, Port of Spain with 432 and San Fer­nan­do with 411. North­ern Trinidad (Grand Bazaar to Ari­ma) ac­count­ed for 265 re­ports while West Trinidad tal­lied less than 100 re­ports with 98 while To­ba­go, East Trinidad (San­gre Grande, Ma­yaro and RIo Claro) and the South West penin­su­la ac­count­ed for 42, 24, and 17 re­ports re­spec­tive­ly.

Stod­dard said de­spite the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic, the FIU had made great strides in com­bat­ing mon­ey laun­der­ing, fi­nanc­ing of ter­ror­ism and pro­lif­er­a­tion fi­nanc­ing. The FIU said this helped achieve Trinidad and To­ba­go’s re­moval from the Fi­nan­cial Ac­tion Task Force’s “grey list” of coun­tries which re­quired in­creased mon­i­tor­ing.

Stod­dard said FI­U­Con­nect, which al­lowed en­ti­ties to sub­mit re­ports around the clock, con­tributed great­ly to the im­ple­men­ta­tion of an­ti-mon­ey laun­der­ing and counter ter­ror­ism fi­nanc­ing mea­sures.

How­ev­er Stod­dard not­ed that there were few­er re­quests from law en­force­ment to in­ves­ti­gate in­stances of Mon­ey Laun­der­ing and Fi­nanc­ing of Ter­ror­ism

The FI­UTT re­ceived 184 re­quests for fi­nan­cial in­tel­li­gence on 598 sub­jects from Law En­force­ment Au­thor­i­ties (LEAs) in 2020, as com­pared to the 221 re­quests on 636 sub­jects that were re­ceived in the pre­vi­ous re­port­ing pe­ri­od. This rep­re­sents a 17 per cent de­crease in the num­ber of re­quests for in­ves­ti­ga­tions in­to Mon­ey Laun­der­ing (ML)/Fi­nanc­ing of Ter­ror­ism (FT) and oth­er crim­i­nal con­duct,” Stod­dard said.

How­ev­er when the FIU was called in by law en­force­ment, cash seizures re­lat­ing to mon­ey laun­der­ing, was the most com­mon rea­son with 61 in­stances.

Entornointeligente.com

URGENTE: Conoce aquí los Juguetes más vendidos de Amazon www.smart-reputation.com

Cafecito Informativo

Smart Reputation

Noticias de Boxeo

Boxeo Plus
Boxeo Plus
Repara tu reputación en Twitter con Smart Reputation
Repara tu reputación en Twitter con Smart Reputation

Adscoins

Smart Reputation

Smart Reputation