ASFA warns AUSTRAC on customer due diligence changes

30 January 2014
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) has been warned that proposed changes to its customer due diligence rules could impose complex and costly changes on superannuation funds as they scrambled to improve their information collecting capabilities. 

The warning is contained in a submission from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) which has also taken AUSTRAC to task for how loosely it has sought to identify politicians, senior public servants and senior members of the military for the purposes of superannuation funds undertaking customer due diligence. 

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has used a submission on AUSTRAC’s draft Anti-Money Laundering/Counter Terrorism rules relating to customer due diligence to warn that some key definitions including those for politicians, senior public servants and high ranking military offices need to be clarified. 

The submission goes so far as to tell AUSTRAC that it needs to clarify whether its descriptor “government ministers” includes both Federal and State government ministers while cautioning that this could significantly increase the workload of one particular superannuation fund. 

“In sub-paragraph 1(b) of the definition of politically exposed person, does 'government ministers’ refer to State as well as Commonwealth ministers?” the submission asks. “ASFA considers that this should be clarified. Assuming this is the case, some of our members have advised that this alone would represent a much larger population of PEP members than would otherwise be captured under the old definition (one fund has advised that in their case this would be at least 100 extra PEPs). This would require significant changes to funds’ enrolment/on-boarding processes.” 

The submission similarly points to difficulties with respect to public servants, stating that “in sub-paragraph 1(c), it is unclear what exactly constitutes a 'senior’ government official. In particular, it is not apparent how 'prominent’ they must be or whether this includes senior public servants. Guidance will be necessary as to how to determine who is sufficiently senior or prominent to be included”. 

The submission warned that superannuation funds are not equipped to identify “politically exposed” people and that requiring them to do so would require complex changes to their information collecting capabilities.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

11 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

11 months 1 week ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

11 months 1 week ago

Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Co...

1 day 18 hours ago

Demand from institutional investors was the main driver of growth in Australia’s responsible investment (RI) market in 2023, as the industry continued to gain momentum....

1 day 18 hours ago

In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges....

1 day 19 hours ago