• About Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • Newsletter
  • Podcasts
  • Digital Magazine
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Self Development
  • Growth
  • Finance
  • Marketing
  • Technology
  • Sustainability
  • About Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • Newsletter
  • Podcasts
  • Digital Magazine
NZBusiness Magazine

Type and hit Enter to search

Linkedin Facebook Instagram Youtube
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Self Development
  • Growth
  • Finance
  • Marketing
  • Technology
  • Sustainability
NZBusiness Magazine
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Self Development
  • Growth
  • Finance
  • Marketing
  • Technology
  • Sustainability
Finance

Anti-money laundering: what you need to know

AML/CFT enforcement action is on the rise – are you caught under New Zealand’s anti-money laundering legislation? Lloyd Kavanagh and Judy Chu shed some light in the subject. The Anti-Money […]

Glenn Baker
Glenn Baker
December 16, 2019 6 Mins Read
497

AML/CFT enforcement action is on the rise – are you caught under New Zealand’s anti-money laundering legislation? Lloyd Kavanagh and Judy Chu shed some light in the subject.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (AML/CFT Act or Act) imposes strict compliance obligations on businesses, known as “reporting entities” under the Act, in an effort to curtail money laundering and terrorism financing risks. It is now being strongly enforced.

The three AML/CFT supervisors – Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) – have become much more active in enforcement recently.

The DIA has led the way, succeeding in three civil proceedings against reporting entities for non-compliance with AML/CFT obligations. In 2017, Ping An Finance (Group) New Zealand Company Limited was ordered by the High Court to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $5.29 million for multiple breaches of the Act. In 2018, Qian Duo Duo Limited paid $356,000 in pecuniary penalties, and, in 2019, Jin Yuan Finance Limited was ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of approximately $4 million.

Having recently filed its fourth civil proceeding and the first criminal proceedings under the Act, the DIA is showing no signs of slowing down. The criminal proceedings were brought against an unnamed company and two employees accused of failing to report several suspicious transactions worth more than $53 million.

To date, the FMA and RBNZ have preferred to issue formal and informal warnings or accept enforceable undertakings. However, they are expected to be more assertive in enforcement as time passes.

To avoid incurring severe penalties (and potential imprisonment), it is vital reporting entities ensure they understand their obligations and are fully compliant with the AML/CFT Act.  

 

The AML/CFT Act six years on

It is more than six years since the AML/CFT Act came into force on 1 July 2013. However, due to ambiguous provisions, a myriad of inclusions and exemptions, and different entities being brought into the regime on a staggered basis, many businesses are still coming to grips with how to comply. In fact, some businesses and individuals may not even be aware that they are caught under the Act.

 

Who needs to comply?

The AML/CFT Act applies to reporting entities to the extent they carry out any of the activities specified in the Act. Reporting entities include casinos, financial institutions, high-value dealers, the Racing Industry Transition Agency (formerly the New Zealand Racing Board), and designated non-financial businesses and professions such as lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, as well as trust and company service providers.

 

Some may be surprised that they are caught

Unfortunately, it is not always clear-cut when a person is a reporting entity for the purposes of the Act. A financial institution is defined as a person who, in the ordinary course of business, carries on one or more of the financial activities specified in the Act. This list of financial activities is broad, and sometimes ambiguous, and there is limited published guidance available on what is and is not included. A person may be a “financial institution” if, in the ordinary course of business, they, for example:

  • accept deposits or other repayable funds from the public;
  • lend to or for a customer;
  • transfer money or value for, or on behalf of, a customer;
  • safe-keep or administer cash or liquid securities on behalf of other persons; and/or
  • invest, administer, or manage funds or money on behalf of other persons.

(Note: The above list is a summary of only some of the captured activities.)

The definition of trust and company service provider is also wide-ranging covering any person that is not already specified, who is carrying out any of the designated activities of a designated non-financial business or profession. These include, in the ordinary course of business:

  • acting as a formation agent (e.g. of companies, partnerships or trusts);
  • acting as, or arranging for a person to act as, a nominee director or nominee shareholder or trustee;
  • providing a registered office or a business address, a correspondence address, or an administrative address for a company, or a partnership, or trust (unless the office or address is provided solely as an ancillary service to the provision of other services);
  • managing client funds (other than sums paid as fees for professional services), accounts, securities, or other assets; and
  • engaging in – or giving instructions on behalf of a customer to another person for:
    • a transaction on behalf of any person in relation to the buying, transferring, or selling of a business or legal person (e.g. a company) and any other legal arrangement; or
    • a transaction on behalf of a customer in relation to creating, operating, and managing a legal person (e.g. a company) and any other legal arrangement.

So, for example, on a literal reading of the AML/CFT Act, any person who in the ordinary course of business manages client funds or payments, or provides a business address may be a reporting entity (there are some exemptions, but these do not help in all cases).

Broad and ambiguous provisions like these can mean that many businesses and individuals who would not typically be considered financial institutions or trust and company service providers could be surprised to find out that they are caught under the Act.

 

Why all this ambiguity?

The AML/CFT Act is a principles-based statute, which means that it is intentionally less prescriptive than other New Zealand legislation to allow for a broader, purposive approach to interpretation. The purpose of the Act is to detect and deter money laundering and terrorism financing.

When originally enacted, it was expected that the Act would be accompanied by extensive official guidance to provide clarity. While there is some guidance, it can be hard to find, is often limited, and may itself be hard to interpret or apply.

When assessing whether an entity is caught under the Act, in addition to a technical reading of the provisions (and any guidance), the money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with a business need to be taken into consideration to apply the regime. However, as money laundering strategies become more sophisticated, this is not always easy to determine.

 

What are the obligations of reporting entities under the AML/CFT Act?

It is a common misconception that AML/CFT compliance is limited to carrying customer due diligence (i.e. identity verification) during the customer onboarding process.

The applicable compliance obligations can differ between reporting entities (e.g. high-value dealers will be subject to less onerous obligations), but they are extensive. They generally include putting in place and maintaining formal AML/CFT compliance infrastructure such as appointing an AML Compliance Officer reporting to senior management, a written risk assessment of the money laundering and terrorism financing risks associated with the reporting entity’s business, and a written AML/CFT Programme responding to those risks.

Other obligations include undertaking staff vetting and training, conducting initial and ongoing customer due diligence, monitoring transactions and accounts on an ongoing basis to detect suspicious activities and transactions, reporting suspicious activities and transactions to the Police FIU, and complying with the auditing and reporting requirements under the Act.

Even if no money laundering has occurred, a reporting entity may be prosecuted for not having the required infrastructure or failing to perform other obligations. In fact, some of the cases mentioned above, have involved exactly that scenario.

 

Seek legal advice if in doubt

We recommend that any person concerned about whether they have AML/CFT compliance obligations seek legal advice as soon as possible. Alternatively, they could contact the DIA, FMA or RBNZ directly to seek guidance.

The ramifications of non-compliance can be severe with enforcement action potentially giving rise to both civil and criminal liability, especially for entities who have been subject to the regime since 2013.

Lloyd Kavanagh is a partner, and Judy Chu a solicitor, at MinterEllisonRuddWatts.

Share Article

Glenn Baker
Follow Me Written By

Glenn Baker

Glenn is a professional writer/editor with 50-plus years’ experience across radio, television and magazine publishing.

Other Articles

Child & Youth 1
Previous

Putting child and youth wellbeing at the heart of business

Kirsten-Patterson
Next

IoD backs move to build small business capability

Next
Kirsten-Patterson
December 16, 2019

IoD backs move to build small business capability

Previous
December 16, 2019

Putting child and youth wellbeing at the heart of business

Child & Youth 1

Subscribe to our newsletter

NZBusiness Digital Issue – March 2025

READ MORE

The Latest

Is AI making us happier? Why some Kiwi leaders would trade coffee for Generative AI

May 13, 2025

Step back to move forward – how Kiwi business owners can unlock growth

May 12, 2025

Samsung CSP: Leading the way in tech repairs across New Zealand

May 12, 2025

A business journey from surgeon to CEO

May 9, 2025

Entries open for 2025 Sustainable Business Awards

May 8, 2025

The new concrete flooring system that won’t end up in landfill

May 8, 2025

Most Popular

NZBusiness Digital Issue – June 2024
Understanding AI
Navigating economic headwinds: Insights for SME owners
Nourishing success: Sam Bridgewater on his entrepreneurship journey with The Pure Food Co
Navigating challenges: Small business resilience amidst sales decline

Related Posts

Tony Falkenstein Tips.

Cashflow advice from Tony Falkenstein: Communicate early, prioritise cash

April 8, 2025
Krystle Broughm's cashflow management tips.

Cashflow management tips for SMEs – advice from Krystle Brough

March 27, 2025

How SME owners can improve cashflow in tough times

March 19, 2025

Take control of your cashflow with tax pooling

March 18, 2025
NZBusiness Magazine

New Zealand’s leading source for business news, training guides and opinion from small businesses to multi-national corporations.

© Pure 360 Limited.
All Rights Reserved.

Quick Links

  • Advertise with us
  • Magazine issues
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Sitemap

Categories

  • News
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Growth
  • Finance
  • Education & Development
  • Marketing
  • Technology
  • Sustainability

Follow Us

LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Self Development
  • Growth
  • Finance
  • Marketing
  • Technology
  • Sustainability