When leading a financial services entity, in particular within the company service provision, one needs to be aware of the consequences of business decisions that could undermine the entity’s business policies, systems and the overall compliance culture. In this 5-part series of articles, I will analyse 5 business decisions, through the legislative references such decisions could fall foul of, the impact on the organisation these decisions could have, and attempt to suggest a course of action.

Compliance/AML Division bonus scheme linked to the attainment of new business

The problematic decision to be analysed in this article is that which causes the Compliance/AML divisions to be seen as business enablers, having their bonus scheme linked to new business KPIs.

Legislative/Competent Authorities’ references

The Company Services Providers Rule Book, issued by the Malta Financial Services Authority on the 15th March 2021, has expressed itself very clearly on this particular issue, specifically about the conflict of having AML/Compliance staff or effectively the 2nd line of defence in fighting ML/FT within a firm, in being client-facing and having their remuneration compromise their objectivity. The relevant persons involved in the compliance function shall not be involved in the performance of services or activities which they monitor and shall be sufficiently independent from the client onboarding process; and the method of determining the remuneration of the relevant persons involved in the compliance function shall not compromise their objectivity and shall not be likely to do so’.[1]

Main impact

Undoubtedly, it is important that the AML/Compliance division attains a reasonable level of commercial pragmatism[2] and that the procedures and processes of this division do not hinder the commercial aspect but compliments it by ensuring that new business onboarded is in line with entity’s Board risk appetite and done in accordance to prevailing AML rules and regulations. However, any current set-up with the AML/Compliance division seen as business enablers with their bonus scheme tied to new business, impinges directly on the independence and objectivity of the division and seriously undermines the compliance culture any Board needs to focus on building.

In addition, maintaining the current status breaches the CSP Rule Book and the MFSA may, ‘by virtue of the authority granted to it, impose administrative penalties, without recourse to a court of law, up to a maximum of €50,000’. [3]

From an MLRO standpoint, having the 2nd line of defence and members of this team with prejudiced independence and objectivity could result in personal sanctions, both administrative and criminal, especially if due to the division’s dereliction of duty towards AML and in favour of on-boarding business, results in the on-boarding of non-reputable, fraudulent, criminal business or sanctioned PEPs.  This will cascade on the firm, with reputational, legal and operational damage.

Course of action

It is recommended that the bonus scheme for the staff members of the AML/Compliance division is immediately amended. Any references to sales or onboarding of new business are removed.

Clear job descriptions and roles are drawn up removing any conflicting references that imparts from the independence and objectivity needed in such compliance roles and any KPIs linked to new business is replaced by compliance metrics. One would suggest to involve HR in revising any contractual references with conflicting duties and AML staff bonuses switched to a pre-determined amount or percentage of salary, linked to updated KPIs such as:

  • Number of internal compliance issues open;
  • Post-authorities’ and regulatory inspections, the number of compliance-issues identified;
  • Turnaround time in providing feedback on onboarding as long as they are not part of the decision to onboard;
  • Keeping abreast with legislative rules and regulations;
  • Self-development in the compliance/AML field.

By putting the above in place, the Board will be also progressing towards a more balanced/compliance culture.

About the Author

This article has been authored by Jean-Claude Cardona, CSB Group Operations & Finance Director. Contact us on https://www.csbgroup.com/contact-us/ for more information.

[1] Company Service Provider Rule Book, MFSA, March 2021, R3 8.4.

[2] ICA Manual, Module 5.

[3] Company Service Provider Rule Book, MFSA, March 2021, R5 2.2.

'Credit & Financial Institutions' Related News Articles

The HSBC Malta Foundation supports Three-Year UM Research Project through RIDT
HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c.

by HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c.

19th February 2024

Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

17th January 2024

Goal-line Defenders: Scoring Victory Against Financial Crime with the Three Lines of AML/CFT Defence
CSB Group

by CSB Group

12th January 2024

Agreement reached on the establishment of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (“AMLA”)
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

3rd January 2024

FIAU Thematic Review on Company Service Providers when providing Company Formation Services
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

3rd January 2024

Directive 93/13/EEC and mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions in consumer contracts
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

3rd January 2024

MiCA Update: Consultation Process on the Proposed Updates to Chapter 3 of the VFA Rulebook
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

1st November 2023

Continuing to disclose the topic EU funding for Startups ¦ Startup Definition
Griffiths + Associates Ltd

by Griffiths + Associates Ltd

31st October 2023

EU Court’s Landmark Ruling: Restricting Financial Ties to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

16th August 2023

ESMA issues public statement in relation to sustainability disclosures in prospectuses
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

16th August 2023

The new notified PIFs framework: MFSA publishes consultation document on regulatory changes
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

26th May 2023