Skip to content

Compliance Building

Doug Cornelius on compliance for private equity real estate

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • About
    • About Doug
    • About This Website
    • Why I Blog
    • Speaking Engagements
    • Contact
    • Publications
  • Archives
    • Topic Archive
    • Book Reviews
    • Most Popular
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimers
    • Disclaimers
    • Policies and Procedures
    • Use of Site Content
    • Comments
    • FTC Disclosure
Menu

Money Laundering Reporting Officer Fined

Posted on October 30, 2008 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Financial Servies Authority of the United Kindom fined Sindicatum Holdings Limited £49,000 and its money laundering reporting officer (MLRO), Michael Wheelhouse, £17,500 for not having adequate anti-money laundering systems and controls in place for verifying and recording clients’ identities. [FSA fines firm and MLRO for money laundering controls failings]  Apparently this is the first time the FSA has fined a money laundering reporting officer. The FSA did not find any evidence of money laundering at the firm.

In the final notice for Mr Michael Wheelhouse, the FSA states:

2.1. Throughout the Relevant Period, Mr Wheelhouse was approved by the FSA to perform and performed the controlled function of Money Laundering Reporting Function (CF11). As such, he was the Firm’s money laundering reporting officer. In that role, he had responsibility for oversight of the Firm’s compliance with the FSA’s rules on systems and controls against money laundering.

2.2. However, in performing that role and discharging CF11, Mr Wheelhouse failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the business of the Firm for which he was responsible in his controlled function complied with the relevant standards and requirements of the regulatory system (as required by Statement of Principle 7 of APER (“Statement of Principle 7”)).

2.3. Mr Wheelhouse breached Statement of Principle 7 by failing to take reasonable steps to implement adequate procedures for verifying the identity of the Firm’s clients; by failing to ensure that the Firm adequately verified the identity of a significant number of its clients; and by failing to ensure that the Firm kept adequate records to demonstrate that it had verified the identity of a significant number of its clients.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search for Stuff

Recent Stories

  • The Performance of the SEC in 2025
  • More on the Downsizing of the SEC
  • SEC Enforcement Results for FY 2025
  • Proposed Fundamental Reforms to AML Programs
  • Is It a Truck or a Security?
  • The One with Low IQ from Pet IQ
  • The Downsizing of the SEC
  • When “Today” Is Not all of “Today”
  • Compliance Bricks and Mortar for March 27
  • The One Where Theory Meets Reality

Fight Cancer

Please support my Pan-Mass Challenge
Make a donation to fight cancer. donate.pmc.org/DC0176
pan-mass challenge badge

I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Since I’m a lawyer, this website may be considered attorney advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions. Please read my disclaimers page before taking any action. And then, don't take any action based on what I wrote.

Creative Commons logo with the text 'Some Rights Reserved' and three symbols representing attribution, non-commercial use, and share alike.

Compliance Building - by Doug Cornelius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.