How will you know government is targeting your GMail?

Google will tell you.

In the latest effort to fight the FBI is the court of public opinion, Google has decided to just let you know when you are being targeted by a government entity.

The way this will work is that a warning will pop up before the user visits a site from a link provided in GMail. The warning will be just like the “safe browsing” warning that shows up in Google Chrome when a link leads the user to a suspicious or known malicious site.

Google is doing this in light of FBI’s pursuit of Apple’s encryption keys.


Marcus Maltempo is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Fraud Examiner with more than a decade of experience helping banks, law firms and clients manage investigations and regulatory responses. 

Advertisements

When 95% of borrowers are fake

The following story is an argument for having good auditing laws and securities regulations protecting investors.

e-Zubao was an Anhui-based Chinese online financing company. It was small, just 21 people. And in just 18 months, it became the largest online financing company in China. It provided loans to consumers, promarily, at 9% to 15% interest. Investors loved it. This company was going to make hand-over-fist. Almost a million investors invested in the company through the stock exchange.

None of the above is false. But they did falsify one thing: the number of borrowers. There were none. Well, not exactly none. About 5% of the stated borrowers were actually borrowers. The rest were made-up ghosts. To put it in terms of returns, to make the same kind of returns it stated it would be making, it would have to have just one employee, and all other costs must also be 20 time less.

You can imagine the horror when investors found out that their explosive company imploded.


Marcus Maltempo is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Fraud Examiner with more than a decade of experience helping banks, law firms and clients manage investigations and regulatory responses. 

33 banks lost to create 4

from Exposing Truth
from Exposing Truth

Risk is always two sides. Get rid of one risk and it comes with another. Insurance plans, for example, supposedly reduce risk, but if you pay the insurance premium, you are essentially getting rid of the substantive risk for a financial one. One of the ways we have thought about reducing risk is by making each financial institution insure itself through sheer size. The local pizzeria simple isn’t much of a loan risk to a bank with trillions of dollars. We have offset that risk with the risk of less personal interaction. We have made banking more and more transactional and less and less transformational.

The day-to-day business of a bank is really transactional. But the purpose of all of those transactions are supposed to be both transactional and transformational. Transactional in that the money gets wired, or deposit is recorded, or loan is approved. Transformational in that the money wired could provide someone the funds to get to work that day, or the deposit recorded provides the documentation for a mortgage loan, or loan approved so that the borrower can start a new business.

The question for Americans in regards to the size of financial institutions is whether the transactional efficiency now hinders the economic transformation that it is supposed to foster. More efficient transactions free up funds for other economic activity. But have we gotten to a point where the freed up capital is primarily helping wealthier people who then are equipped to more resources to make them wealthier while leaving the less-wealthy behind?

This is not a new question, of course. And I certainly don’t have the solution for what is the right amount of competition in banking that will foster more economic transformation while keeping risk relatively low. One test that I place to begin my inquiry is this: What percentage of transformational projects have been funded by bank loans versus investment from wealthy people? As a follow up, I would ask, When did these transformational projects get funded? I don’t know the answers to these questions but my feeling is that greater transformational projects have been funded by wealthy people over time. While I don’t know what proportion is the right proportion for the American economy, we are probably in a period where bank loans do not transform much of the economy anymore. If my feelings were on the mark, it would probably also mean that banks play a less important role in transforming the economy than before, and, therefore, might need a shake up of some sort. That shake up could come in the form of bank breakups, which increases the number of leaders in the industry with smaller pockets, forcing them to rely on ideas to have bank loans compete better with equity investments. But then again we are not in the mood to taken on more risk these days, and competing with equity investors to fund projects is a riskier activity.

So, I guess what I’m saying is: We are thinking about risk to the financial system all wrong. Size itself is just one variable but it isn’t big enough of a variable to change the economy in any meaningful way. Our mentality now is that banks simply move money around and store it and lend it to known risks. People used to start business with loans. Now, less people start businesses with loans. We have given debt a bad name. And that won’t change with having smaller banks… after all, banks, regardless of size, are enablers of debt.


Marcus Maltempo is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Fraud Examiner with more than a decade of experience helping banks, law firms and clients manage investigations and regulatory responses. 

You’ve been Gooched

Charmian Good, co-founder of Global Witness via CBS News
Charmian Good, co-founder of Global Witness via CBS News

In a recent 60 Minutes episode on CBS, Global Witness, the nonprofit with the goal to “change the system by exposing the economic networks behind conflict, corruption & environmental abuse,” revealed the stunning fact that the United States has become the “easiest place to set up an anonymous company after Kenya, out of 180 countries.” As a result, GW decided to test the system by trying to get meetings with some fifty law firms. Thirteen firms accepted meetings and only one turned them down outright. One other firm said they would require more information before taking on the client.

What did these firms want to continue talking about? Well, basically helping a fictitious minister of natural resources in an unnamed African nation to move fictitious funds he received from bribes from corporations who wanted mineral rights, which he has control over. Obviously, the lawyers did not know of their fictitious nature. Still, the videos, which 60 Minutes showed, were rather damning.

The paradox is that US has one of the strictest  rules and regulations for Know-Your-Customer and Anti-Money Laundering in the world, but all of those laws pertain to the practices of financial institutions. Lawyers are exempt from much of the reporting rules, making it easy for them to get by undetected.

Charmian Gooch, a co-founder for Global Witness, made herself available for interviews with CBS on this piece to share these shocking revelations. In the process, probably made herself a target of many law firms. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, that there are more law firms willing to work with her organization, now that it has put itself on the map of the general public.

 


Marcus Maltempo is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Fraud Examiner with more than a decade of experience helping banks, law firms and clients manage investigations and regulatory responses. 

Bear Market Compliance

Jules, the bulldog, chase away the bears
Jules, the bulldog, chase away the bears

It’s easy to want to reduce compliance spending as the bank enters a bear market, but this is a bad idea for a whole host of reasons. The single primary reason is that revenue centers employees may take on non-compliant and high risk activities to reduce that decline in revenue to keep save their jobs. The incentive structure of your revenue center employees and the compliance culture will be tested.

Ideally, compliance spending should be relatively stable regardless of any short term market trends. In this case, short term means 18 months, because it is strategic. If your compliance department is organized to simply tackle tactical issues, you will need more compliance activity to address the possible rise of noncompliant activities.

In this sense, compliance is a lot like branding. Culture is one of the most important ingredients to Compliance Management. I know there are a lot of supposed Compliance Experts who talk about culture. If you haven’t noticed, my reader, I rarely talk about culture. It’s not that I don’t think it isn’t important, but because culture seems to be the only thing most Compliance Experts talk about; culture and tone from the top. But anyone who is actually a Compliance Expert would agree with me, culture is the one thing that doesn’t require compliance expertise.

In this entry, though, I will address culture from the perspective of a leader, not a manager. A leader who is promoting a Culture of Compliance will be cognizant of the fact that the Compliance Department’s culture and the Line of Business’s culture are often different. And the ways they are different depend on the mix of people in the Compliance Department more than the people in the Line of Business.

Compliance, by nature, requires being pedantic. Possibilities are dealt with, rather than thrown aside in favor of priorities. The few rogue employees are always looking out for possibilities, not necessarily what is right. The current bank structures are organized to reward those who bring in the most money, making the activity that brought in the money the de facto “right thing.”

We live in a society that rewards based on money, not productivity. Luckily, most of the time, productivity is the right thing. We don’t live in a society, however, that rewards those who are more productive; we live in one that rewards those who own the productivity. This means that a few superstar employees who know how to vastly upend the current level of productivity often are rewarded when the great many who help those superstars are not. (I know, I know, I’m starting to sound like a bleeding liberal; just hang in with me.) These superstars do not want to share their productivity gains with others who have helped them on their way. This last bit of change is what describes a transactional society, not a transformational one. Think about it. Transactions take just a minimum of two parties; one invariably makes a better decision than the other. Transactional society creates losers. A transformational one requires assessing one’s actual contributions and rewarding proportionally. A transformational society creates winners of varying degrees. When done right, much of the fear of getting laid off during a downturn will lessen because the issue isn’t due to proving one’s productive value but due to an issue of demand and the comparative productive value against other colleagues.

This doesn’t mean a transformational society is Utopia. But it means that people will understand the true competitive nature of the workplace: the larger competition between firms that an employee contributes to and the smaller competition between employees to be the most valuable on the team – again, the intrafirm competition doesn’t create losers but degrees of winning. But, as I said, we don’t have such a society.

That’s where managing the Culture of Compliance becomes important. Everyone should always feel like they are contributing to the welfare of the firm and compliance to policies and procedures should feel like a contribution to that firm welfare. And work should have a causality to it, meaning, one’s work causes something else to happen. If it merely has a correlation to it, as many corporate employees feel as they do, work feels bureaucratic. And it probably is. Then, of course, each employee’s duty to themselves comes down to the impression of productivity or cheating to be more productive. While only the latter is a compliance issue, they are two sides of the same coin.

So, to sum up the issue of tackling the Culture of Compliance as we head into a bear market, the Culture of Compliance starts from the duties of an employee having causal relationship to the firm’s well-being and understanding that noncompliance and brown-nosing are both results of caring more about results from a short period of time, not a long full history.

I know people might say that I am being idealistic with this, but if you are a compliance professional who doesn’t know how to lead your bank, you are ready to lead your compliance department. Compliance is a responsibility of every member of the firm and the Compliance department exists to take some of the responsibility away from other members of the firm so that they can focus on other activities. So, of course, I believe that leadership and Culture of Compliance as transformational issues, not a transactional one.

If you don’t believe me, then you are probably not a Compliance Expert. If you are a Compliance Expert, you would already know that regulators also agree with me on this point and often Delayed Prosecution Agreements are rewarded based on dealing with issues like I have mentioned.


Marcus Maltempo is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Fraud Examiner with more than a decade of experience helping banks, law firms and clients manage investigations and regulatory responses. 

If the French strip citizenship…

http://www.liberation.fr/france/2016/01/27/christiane-taubira-ecarte-l-idee-de-participer-a-une-primaire_1429318
Christiane Taubira, Minister of Justice via Liberation.fr

France is considering an amendment to their constitution that would strip French citizenship to those who are accused of terrorism and possess duo-citizenship. There is a problem with this, of course, because anyone can be accused of terrorism. What happens if that person is not guilty?

And then there is the racism that is neatly disguised as  counter-terrorism. Citizens of the European Union generally do not hold duo-citizenship because they have the economic freedom to do as their like across borders within the Union. That means, this law primarily targets non-Europeans in France. For this reason, Christiane Taubira, the French Minister of Justice (closest equivalent would be the American Attorney General of the Department of Justice), is stepping down. She is Afro-Latin born in French Guiana. She is at no risk of being accused of terrorism, of course, but it isn’t as though she can’t see right through this proposal.

As a financial compliance issue, this adds the terrible problem of figuring out how to treat such a person. Should this person hold a French bank account but is no longer a French subject, this person should be treated as a foreigner. Sounds simple but foreigners have limitations and other criteria attached to their French domestic accounts. Banks will have to scramble to recharacterize bank accounts. Operationally, the best way to do this would be to simply give the interested person a new account, but that puts the bank in jeopardy of losing the account altogether. This is an obvious cost to business that doesn’t seem necessary for a bank because… well, because the person isn’t a terrorist, or at least has not been found guilty of terrorism. Losing money that does not make the financial system and the nation any safer isn’t really a very good way to do business.

The only thing saving the French bank from losing that customer’s business would be that all banks in France would be subject to this. But because of the Union’s economic freedoms, the newly non-union citizen sill still be allowed to hold an account outside of France and even outside of the Union and still do normal daily business. The transition might be troublesome, of course, but that is no more troublesome than simply starting a new account. So, it isn’t much of a save for the French banking system.


Marcus Maltempo is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Fraud Examiner with more than a decade of experience helping banks, law firms and clients manage investigations and regulatory responses. 

 

//