Technology

Mobile Payment Providers & Regulators

Best practices to prevent AML/CTF risks.

July 19, 2011
KEYWORDS payment , risks
/ PRINT / ShareShare / Text Size +

By Mohammad Noor Zraiqat

It's not uncommon to hear about financial institutions being investigated by regulators for a variety of misdeeds.

And we often hear about reporting entities being subjected to investigations, local or international, for financial crimes.

But what about mobile payment providers? Are they being scrutinized as closely as financial institutions? Or will they undergo painstaking “know your customer” policies and enhanced due-diligence procedures?

You may think mobile payment providers aren't targeted by money launderers or terrorist financiers yet.

For many years this sector was left behind during the global war against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Although we believe in the high priority given to other sectors such as financial institutions, we have to admit the money launderers are always a step ahead in seeking new, less-regulated entities to launder their ill-gotten gains.

In 2006, the Financial Action Task Force issued its report on new payment methods of money laundering, including mobile payment vulnerabilities to money laundering and terrorist financing, as a benchmark for both regulators and reporting entities.

In 2010, the task force updated this report to cover a comprehensive risk-based approach and related risk factors. But the major addition was the money laundering typologies and study cases associated with these types of payments, including three cases related to mobile payment schemes over the last four years.

The main reasons for these results were:

  • Third-party funding (including straw men and nominees);
  • Exploitation of the non-face-to-face nature of new payment method accounts; and
  • Complicit new payment method providers or their employees.

Mobile payment systems vary among nations based on a variety of factors. A 2008 World Bank working paper classified mobile payment services into four categories:

1. Mobile financial information services. Through these services, subscribers can request general financial information from personal accounts. There are low or no anti-money laundering/counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) risks associated with these types of services.

2. Mobile bank and securities accounts. With this service, the mobile account will be bounded with a bank or security account with a facility to make transactions through the mobile phone.

Thus, the service will be like an Internet banking service that uses the mobile phone instead of the Internet.

This service poses AML/CTF risks, but it’s strictly overseen due to regulations and surveillance deployed by banks and securities companies.

In addition, the outsourcing business keeps the door opened for additional risks for non-face-to-face account opening procedures.

Additional risks may occur when the bank pools the funds into one account held in the name of mobile payment provider.

3. Mobile payments. These allow nonbank accountholders to make payments for their purchase, utility bills, or services using their mobile phones. For this service, the mobile payment providers play the role of a financial institution. Using the mobile phone as a prepaid card or an electronic purse form a risk for AML/CTF.

4. Mobile money. With this service, the subscriber may store money in the mobile phone and may make payments or transfers through his/her phone. This poses an extreme risk due to lack of regulations and oversight.

As shown above, AML/CTF risks associated with mobile payment/money services threaten the country’s systems and weakens the mobile payment provider’s reputation.

Following are some recommended best practices that will help to mitigate AML/CTF risks associated for both countries and mobile payment providers.

Next: Regulatory framework and legislations

Post a comment to this story

heroes

What's Popular

Popular Stories

Recent Discussion

Great article! Unfortunately, most employees don’t feel valued or appreciated by their supervisors or employers. In fact, research has shown that the predominant reason team members quit their jobs is because they don’t feel valued. This is in spite of the fact that employee recognition programs have proliferated in the workplace – over 90% of all organizations in the U.S. has some form of employee recognition activities in place. But most employee recognition programs are viewed with skepticism and cynicism – because they aren’t viewed as being genuine in their communication of appreciation. Getting the “employee of the month” award, receiving a certificate of recognition, or a “Way to go, team!” email just don’t get the job done. How do you communicate authentic appreciation? We have found people have different ways that they want to be shown appreciation, and if you don’t communicate in the language of appreciation important to them, you essentially “miss the mark”. Additionally, employees need to receive recognition more than once a year at their performance review. Otherwise, they view the praise as “going through the motions”. A third component of authentic appreciation is that the communication has to be about them personally – not the department, not their group, but something they did. Finally, they have to believe that you mean what you say. How you treat them has to match the words you use. If you are not sure how your team members want to be shown appreciation, the Motivating By Appreciation Inventory (www.appreciationatwork.com/assess) will identify the language of appreciation and specific actions preferred by each employee. You then can create a group profile for your team, so everyone knows how to encourage one another. Remember, employees want to know that they are valued for what they contribute to the success of the organization. And communicating authentic appreciation in the ways they desire it can make the difference between keeping your quality team members or having a negative work environment that everyone wants to leave. Paul White, Ph.D., is the co-author of The 5 Languages of Appreciation in the Workplace with Dr. Gary Chapman.

Your Say: Who should be Credit Union Magazine's 2014 CU Hero of the Year?

View Results Poll Archive