RE / MAX Netherlands & SCOPE FinTech Solutions join forces

shutterstock_267766277

RE / MAX Netherlands & SCOPE FinTech Solutions join forces

Reading time: 2 min.

In short

SCOPE FinTech Solutions, an expert in data quality, CRM software and at home in the world of financial and legal services since 1987, has partnered with RE / MAX Netherlands. This means that RE / MAX brokers are offered CDD On Demand, a particularly valuable tool for brokers to be able to meet obligations that fall under the AMLD in a simple and controllable manner.

RE/MAX offers CDD On Demand

Sinds het ontstaan in het jaar 1973, is RE/MAX gegroeid tot ’s werelds grootste franchiseorganisatie in de makelaardij. Momenteel werken er meer dan 130.000 makelaars in bijna 100 landen over de gehele wereld. RE/MAX verovert de wereld. Optimale dienstverlening door samenwerking en innovatie.

RE / MAX focuses on clients, brokers and office owners. RE / MAX provides real estate agents and office owners with the best tools, valuable support and training opportunities. One of these tools is now also the SCOPE FinTech CDD On Demand solution.

The system can be used immediately

CDD On Demand is available from an amount of € 1.50 per check and the system can be used immediately. No long-term contract is necessary and all clients can be processed automatically. CDD On Demand is basically the automated customer due diligence process of Customer Due Diligence.

"" In the context of the Wwft and the client due diligence, I wanted a CDD solution. After we have tested a number of providers, we now use the CDD On Demand tool from SCOPE FinTech Solutions. The tool works quickly, simply and efficiently. The report that the system generates is professional, clear, well-organized and meets the requirements set for us as brokers. In addition, you are not tied to contracts and it is an accessible way to generate the correct information. "- Dennis de Haan: CDD On Demand

Advantage for RE / MAX brokers

Because of the collaboration, affiliated brokers receive a ten percent discount through the affiliated RE / MAX offices. This also offers advantages for the clients of the brokers; because more than ever the real estate agent has time to buy or sell your home now that he knows that CDD On Demand is there.

The Netherlands Gaming Authority is adapting the AMLD guidelines for online gambling games

Creative,Background,,Online,Casino,,In,A,Man's,Hand,A,Smartphone

The Netherlands Gaming Authority is adapting the AMLD guidelines for online gambling games

Leestijd: 2 min.

In short

The Gaming Authority has tightened up the AMLD guidelines in connection with the entry into force of the Remote Games of Chance Act (in Dutch: Koa) on 1 April 2021. The Anti-Money Laundering Directive (hereinafter: AMLD) has been amended due to the entry into force of the new Act. Koa are also going to apply to providers of online gambling games.

Until recently, the provisions contained in the AMLD only applied to physical locations of games of chance of the Holland Casino. Due to the legalization of online games of chance, the Gaming Authority has amended the AMLD guidelines to provide online providers with handles in complying with the AMLD. The first version has been submitted for consultation at various parties.

As of April 1, permits can be applied for for online games of chance. If the license is granted, one falls under the supervision of the Gaming Authority. Since 2016, the Gaming Authority has been charged with enforcing the AMLD for their target group. The purpose of the AMLD is to prevent the use of the financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing. The prevention of money laundering is of great social importance for an effective fight against serious forms of crime. The government employs various professions and branches as "gatekeepers" by means of the AMLD. For example, these professions and industries report high-profile transactions to the authorities who may then decide to investigate the individual or company in question.

With online gambling providers, it is particularly important to keep an eye on unusual transactions and the turnover rate of the transactions. The AMLD is applied more strictly in online sports gambling games because there is also a chance of match fixing. A special unit has been set up within the Gaming Authority that monitors match fixing: Sports Betting Intelligence Unit, or SBIU. The SBIU can report possible match fixing in games of chance. Holders of a license for remote games of chance must report this to the SBIU. Land-based sports betting does not have to comply with the obligations of the AMLD, but does have an obligation to report to the SBIU.

A games of chance provider conducts a customer due diligence in the following cases:

  • When entering into a business relationship; The Gaming Authority assumes that a games of chance provider always enters into a business relationship with its players. A customer due diligence must therefore always be carried out, but only a registration of a player is not a business relationship. Before making a payment and participating in a game of chance, the provider must complete a customer due diligence. 1
  • If there are indications that the player is involved in money laundering;
  • If it doubts the correctness, completeness or topicality of previously obtained data from the player;
  • If the risk of involvement of an existing player in money laundering gives cause to do so;
  • If, given a player's state of residence, there is an increased risk of money laundering.

The customer due diligence consists of four steps. First, the identity is established and confirmed on the basis of an identity document. Subsequently, the games of chance provider must make a risk assessment of the player. The games of chance authority provides a number of risk factor-increasing. You perform a simplified, standard or enhanced customer due diligence on the basis of your risk assessment. The third step in customer due diligence is to continuously monitor the business relationship and the transactions that take place during that relationship. As a fourth step, if necessary, is an investigation into the source of the funds. You do this at an increased risk.

Small and medium-sized companies are also have judicial problems when they violate the AMLD

shutterstock_465586604

Small and medium-sized companies are also have judicial problems when they violate the AMLD

Leestijd: 4 min.

In short

We are often asked how strict and how often authorities check the compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (hereinafter: AMLD) at companies subjected to the AMLD. If we look at recent case law, we see that smaller companies of various sectors suffer considerable reputational damage for relatively minor violations. Often it concerns violations of art. 3, art. 8 and art. 16 of the Wwft (Dutch law). In other words a violation of; the (stricter) customer due diligence (Article 3 in conjunction with Article 8 Wwft) and the duty to report (Article 16 Wwft).

 

What does the AMLD expect from 'gatekeepers'?

With the introduction of the AMLD, some professional groups and sectors have been given a 'gatekeeper' function by the government. By gatekeeper is meant that institutions subject to the AMLD are the first "line" in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The idea behind placing part of the responsibility with these institutions is that the government is far removed from situations where money laundering takes place. Money laundering usually takes place in everyday life, for example with the cash purchase of an expensive watch. It is impossible for the government to supervise this itself.

If we take the example of the cash purchase of an expensive watch, then the jeweler is the gatekeeper who reports to the authorities on the basis of the notification obligation of the AMLD. This notification gives the government insight into such situations where money laundering takes place.

 

Gatekeeper AMLD

 

In addition to the duty to report, customer due diligence is also important because hidden risks may emerge that were not visible in the first instance, for example that a customer is a (tax) resident of a high-risk country. The AMLD therefore assumes a risk-oriented approach. The gatekeepers assess the risk and, if necessary, call in the authorities.

The government is therefore dependent on the gatekeepers to conduct a thorough investigation and to make a report to the authorities when necessary. Failure to do so will create problems in the detection of money laundering. That is why the gatekeepers are also periodically checked by authorities. Supervision is fragmented; the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Security and Justice are responsible for this supervision, but various authorities have been designated as supervisors. For example, the Dutch Bank (DNB), the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) and the Financial Supervision Office (BFT) are responsible for supervision. For the full list click here .
* This paragraph applies to the supervision in the Netherlands

What happens in the practice?

Many gatekeepers are aware of their obligations, but not of the consequences if they fail to fulfill their obligations. Often no check has been carried out or they only know the examples of the ING and ABN AMRO . In practice, inspections do take place (and increasingly more frequent). We get examples of larger firms where a supervisory authority is calling to report that they will be checking client files in a week, but medium and smaller firms are also being checked. Two recent lawsuits are briefly detailed below:

Example 1: inattentive notary
Source 1

Industry: Notary
Type of law: civil law/disciplinary law
Offense: the Financial Supervision Office (BFT) found that the notary did not comply with the duty to investigate, the duty to refuse, the performance of a (stricter) customer due diligence and the duty to report with three files that contained risk indicators.
Judgment: order for legal costs compensation of € 3,500 in the first instance. On appeal, this conviction was upheld and the notary was given a measure of reprimand, a fine of € 3000 and the court ordered the notary to pay € 3,000 in costs of handling the complaint on appeal.

Example 2: criminal record for tax advisor
Source 2

Industry: Tax advisor
Type of law: criminal law
Offense: Three times purposely not reporting a transaction of € 15,000 or higher (totaling € 85,462.52) and three times purposely not performing a customer due diligence.
Judgment: the court considers it proven that the suspect has deliberately renounced the duty to report and perform a customer due diligence on several occasions while he was an indirect director of the company [x]. He is personally liable for this and sentenced to a fine of € 7,000 or 70 days in replacement detention.

What is striking about both cases are the violations. In both cases, the duty to report and the obligation to perform a (stricter) client due diligence according to the AMLD are violated, resulting in significant reputation damage.

Also worth mentioning are the different areas of law. Not only the supervision of compliance with the AMLD is fragmented, but also the method of enforcement. This Act is enforced under disciplinary, administrative and criminal law. Criminal enforcement is the last resort, which means that it is only used if no other means is suitable. This means that the use of criminal law is limited to those cases in which the duty to report is deliberately and in case of repetition , or where the duty to report is violated in order to achieve monetary gain. A deliberate violation of the duty to report is considered a criminal offense and can be punished by imprisonment of up to two years, community service or a fine of the fourth category. Because it is a crime, this also results in a criminal record. The second case shows that someone as a natural person was criminally convicted of violating the AMLD.

The measure of reprimand imposed on the notary also counts as a severe measure and has, among other things, done serious damage to reputation. In addition to the reputational damage, the notary in question was also obligated to pay a total of € 9,500.

Prevention is better than cure

These cases show that even three times - intentionally or unintentionally - overlooking suspicious files or transactions can be enough for far-reaching sanctions. The authorities have made anti-money laundering an increasing priority and increased the frequency of checks. As in many cases, prevention is better than cure. Systematically auditing all of your clients by conducting client screenings, placing them on a monitor list and complying with your duty to report will help you avoid such litigation and reputational damage. You do not have to worry about periodic checks.

To accelerate and automate these obligations, SCOPE FinTech Solutions has developed the CDD On Demand solution. CDD On Demand works as a web application, as an API or through customization for large users. Based on first and last name and date of birth or Chamber of Commerce number with a business client, your client will be shown on eleven different points. controlled that pose an increased risk. If your client has been checked on all points, you will receive a certified PDF report showing that you have fulfilled your obligation. If there is an increased risk, you are obliged to take additional steps and possibly report it to authorities. You can request ten free credits to experience the convenience of CDD On Demand yourself or you can read more about the extensive functionalities .

Source 1: Gerechtshof Amsterdam 26 juni 2020, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2020:1550

Source 2: Rechtbank Amsterdam 6 juni 2019, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:5975