Page 63 - ACAMS-Today-V20N3

Is the rule clear and do you support it?
The first question asked whether the proposal was clear. Large banks directly or indirectly found that the concept of an “effective and reasonably designed” program was readily apparent. From the eight small banks that answered, six agreed that the rule was clear and two disagreed.
The second question asked whether the three elements of the rule――a risk assessment, record keeping and alignment with national priorities――were appropriate. None of the large banks answered this directly. Some of the small banks did, but they were divided. The only common theme among them, regardless of their approval of the three elements, was concern over how the production of “information with a high degree of usefulness to government authorities” would be evaluated.
The third question asked whether the proposed rule was “an appropriate mechanism to increase effectiveness.” Again, no large bank replied and the smaller FIs responded with diverging opinions. Two respondents who supported the rule as drafted emphasized that it will be critical to assess the value of feedback from law enforcement and that examiners must “fully embrace” evaluating effectiveness.
How should the rule be implemented?
The fourth question asked whether the requirement of an effective and reasonable program should be imposed on all FIs. Two large banks answered and both agreed on making the standard a universal requirement. One of these banks requested for coverage to include fintechs. Among small banks, three supported making the standard a requirement across all FIs and four opposed it.
The fifth question asked if a risk assessment should become a regulatory requirement. The large banks all
[ AML POLICY ]
[ JUNE–AUGUST 2021 ] 63