AML Scenario Gap Finder

Sanctioned ownership and control

Which control finds customers and counterparties owned or controlled by blocked persons, not only named on a list?

A scenario that places here

example

"Sanctioned ownership: customers 50 percent owned by blocked persons"

Read this scenario

Channels it applies to

3 of the 20 in the dictionary

WIN COR TRD

International wires, correspondent accounts and trade finance: one sector each on the coverage chart, hatched where no scenario reaches it.

Obligations

4 regimes
RegimeObligation
Bank Secrecy Act and its regulations (31 CFR Chapter X)BSA BSA-AML-07 Beneficial Ownership Identification
FATF 40 RecommendationsFATF R.6 Targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism and terrorist financing
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (Australia)AUSTRAC AMLCTF-SANCTIONS Sanctions Screening
OFAC framework for sanctions compliance commitmentsOFAC OFAC-SCP-2.2 Customer and Counterparty Due Diligence

The obligations, quoted

BSA BSA-AML-07 Beneficial Ownership Identification

For legal entity customers, institutions shall identify and verify beneficial owners (25 percent ownership) and one control person.

What an examiner asks to see: Beneficial ownership certification forms; UBO verification records; Renewal procedures on trigger events
Where programmes usually fall short: Old customers not back-filled; Verification only documentary
Source: Bank Secrecy Act and its regulations (31 CFR Chapter X)
FATF R.6 Targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism and terrorist financing

Countries implement targeted financial sanctions regimes giving effect to the UN Security Council resolutions on terrorism and terrorist financing, freezing without delay the funds and other assets of persons and entities designated by or under the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII (resolution 1267 and successors) or designated by the country under resolution 1373, and ensuring that no funds or assets are made available to or for their benefit; the Interpretive Note sets the designation authorities and procedures, the freezing obligations without delay and without prior notice, the prohibitions, the communication of designations, the reporting duties of institutions, the delisting and unfreezing procedures and access to frozen funds for basic expenses.

What an examiner asks to see: Legal basis for freezing without delay; Designation and delisting procedures and the competent authority; Communication mechanism for designations to institutions and their reporting of frozen assets
Where programmes usually fall short: Freezing dependent on a court order that takes days; No domestic designation mechanism under resolution 1373
Source: FATF 40 Recommendations
AUSTRAC AMLCTF-SANCTIONS Sanctions Screening

Screen customers and transactions against DFAT consolidated list and UN sanctions to comply with autonomous sanctions.

What an examiner asks to see: Sanctions screening against DFAT consolidated list
Where programmes usually fall short: No sanctions screening
Source: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (Australia)
OFAC OFAC-SCP-2.2 Customer and Counterparty Due Diligence

The organization must perform risk-based due diligence on customers, counterparties, and intermediaries to identify direct or indirect connections to sanctioned persons, including ownership analysis under the 50 Percent Rule.

What an examiner asks to see: Customer due diligence procedures referencing OFAC obligations; Beneficial ownership records covering ownership thresholds; Enhanced due diligence files for higher-risk customers; Evidence of periodic refresh tied to risk rating
Where programmes usually fall short: Beneficial ownership lookups stop at 25 percent and miss the OFAC 50 percent aggregation rule; No refresh trigger when ownership changes are detected
Source: OFAC framework for sanctions compliance commitments

Other typologies in sanctions screening and interdiction