31.08.2021

COVID-19 AML/CFT Guidance and Annual Report Extension

In a recent statement by the Financial Markets Authority, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (together, the Supervisors), it was agreed that the submission date for reporting entities to submit their annual anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) reports by 31 August 2021 should be extended.  The new deadline is 30 September 2021.  In their statement, the Supervisors also provided a reminder that the “Guidance: Complying with AML/CFT verification requirements during COVID-19 Alert Levels” (COVID-19 Verification Guidance), issued in March 2020, remains applicable.

Annual AML/CFT Reporting

Each reporting entity under the AML/CFT Act 2009 (Act) is required to prepare an annual report on its risk assessment and AML/CFT programme, and provide that report to its respective Supervisor.  As New Zealand is in COVID-19 Alert Level 4 again, the Supervisors have acknowledged that the Alert Level restrictions may result in some reporting entities being unable to access information required to complete their Annual AML/CFT Report.  Therefore, they have agreed to extend the submission deadline, for this year, from 31 August 2021 to 30 September 2021.

As there are serious consequences for failing to comply with the Act, this will be of great relief for those reporting entities that have yet to submit their annual reports.

COVID-19 Verification Guidance 

While subject to COVID-19 Alert Levels 3 and 4, reporting entities are required to change how they operate their businesses.  For example, at Alert Level 4, only reporting entities that provide essential services can continue to operate at their premises and at Alert Level 3, reporting entities generally cannot allow customers or clients to enter the premises.  Therefore, under these Alert Levels, verification policies that reporting entities may typically use, such as face-to-face verification, may be unavailable. 

As a response to these challenges, the Supervisors have provided a reminder that their COVID-19 Verification Guidance, issued for the first COVID-19 lockdown, remains applicable for reporting entities in the current climate.  The COVID-19 Verification Guidance does not introduce new verification exemptions or alternatives, but rather highlights existing methods that may assist reporting entities with AML/CFT compliance under COVID-19 Alert Level restrictions.  These include:

Delayed Verification 

Under the Act, reporting entities may delay identity verification for new business relationships but delay the verification component of customer due diligence (CDD) until later, subject to the following conditions:

  • it is essential not to interrupt normal business practice;
  • money laundering and financing of terrorism risks are effectively managed through specific procedures; and
  • verification of identity is completed as soon as is practicable once the business relationship has been established.

Remote Verification

Under the Amended Identity Verification Code of Practice 2013 (IVCOP), reporting entities may use electronic verification options with a linking mechanism or additional measures to ensure the person being dealt with online is the genuine holder of the identity they claim to be.

Exception Handling Provisions

Under IVCOP, reporting entities are required to have exception handling provisions for circumstances where a customer is unable to provide their original identity documents.  The COVID-19 Verification Guidance provides that with COVID-19 Alert Levels in place, this is a time when exception handling measures would be suitable.  

For Ongoing Due Diligence and Account Monitoring

Under the Act, for ongoing CDD and account monitoring requirements, reporting entities following the prescribed risk-based approach may elect to not sight certain documents in certain circumstances or may accept scanned copies of documents as an interim measure.

Conclusion 

With the increased restrictions of the higher Alert Levels, reporting entities will again have to rely on other methods for identity verification.  The consequences of non-compliance are severe, so reporting entities must proceed with further caution in these times.  Even though we are in an unusual environment under COVID-19 Alert Levels, the Supervisors still expect the AML/CFT regime to be complied with as it would under any other circumstances.

If you have any questions about the AML/CFT Regime or how it may apply to your reporting entity, please get in touch with Sarah Gibbs, Christine Leung or the Business Advice team.

 

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

UK Court of Appeal rules that that courts can order parties to engage in ADR: Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
The England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) has held that in certain circumstances, the courts can order parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or stay proceedings to allow the par...
24.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Health and Safety Tiles
Updated Guidance: IOD and WorkSafe release ‘Health and Safety Governance – A Good Practice Guide’
While we wait with bated breath for the outcome in the prosecution of former Ports of Auckland CEO, Tony Gibson, officers’ duties are very much at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Section 44 of t...
23.07.2024 Posted in Employment & Health & Safety
Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.