Skip to main content
  • 3.2.1.4 Ongoing Monitoring

    All customers must be subject to ongoing monitoring throughout the business relationship. Ongoing monitoring ensures that the account or other financial service is being used in accordance with the customer profile developed through CDD during onboarding, and that transactions are normal, reasonable, and legitimate.

    • 3.2.1.4.1 CDD Updating

      LFIs are required to ensure that the CDD information they hold on all customers is accurate, complete, and up-to-date. This is particularly crucial in the context of customers that are companies, which, by their very nature, can change their fundamental identity overnight. With the stroke of a pen, a company engaged in a low-risk business and owned by reputable UAE residents can move its activities to a high-risk sector and can transfer ownership to nationals of a high-risk foreign jurisdiction. For example:

       Mr. Y and Sons is a highly-reputable dealer in uncut diamonds that has been banking with Bank C for more than 40 years. Bank C's account manager reads in the newspaper that Mr. Y has recently passed away and calls on Mr. Y's sons to express his condolences. During the course of the conversation, the account manager asks which son will be in charge of the business going forward. They inform him that they have just sold the business to a consortium of investors who wished to remain anonymous but who were represented by a global law firm with offices in the Free Zone. Once it has become aware of this fact, Bank C should rapidly identify the new beneficial owners of the customer. If it cannot do so promptly, it should suspend activity on the account.
       

      LFIs should update CDD for all customers on a risk-based schedule, with CDD on higher-risk customers being updated more frequently. EDD on all customers should involve more frequent CDD updates.

      CDD updates should include a refresh of all elements of initial CDD, and in particular should ascertain that:

       The customer's beneficial owners remain the same;
       The customer continues to have an active status with a company registrar;
       The customer has the same legal form and is domiciled in the same jurisdiction;
       The customer is engaged in the same type of business, and in the same geographies;
       

      In addition to a review of the customer's CDD file, the LFI should also review the customer's transactions to determine whether they continue to fit the customer's profile and business, and are consistent with the business the customer expected to engage in when the business relationship was established. This type of transaction review is distinct from the ongoing transaction monitoring discussed in section 3.2.1.4.2 below. The purpose of the review is to complement transaction monitoring by identifying behaviours, trends, or patterns that are not necessarily subject to transaction monitoring rules. For example:

       Bank C is conducting its scheduled CDD review for Company A, a commercial real estate brokerage firm. When reviewing the customer's transactions over the past year, Bank C notices that Company A has begun making fairly regular payments to a counterparty in Country 1. Previously, Company A had engaged in extremely limited cross-border activity. The payments do not exhibit any red flags and therefore were not flagged by Bank C's automated transaction monitoring system. Bank C contacts Company A and learns that it is has recently entered into a referral agreement with a private bank in Country 1. The bank refers customers looking to invest in the real estate sector, in Country 2, to Company A and in return receives a percentage of any commission Company A makes on a resulting sale. Bank C decides to conduct additional due diligence to learn more about the customer base referred to Company A by the bank in Country 1.
       

      The techniques used for transaction review will vary depending on the client. For lower-risk clients, a review of alerts, if any, is likely to be sufficient. For higher risk clients, a more intensive review may be necessary. For clients with a large volume of transactions, LFIs may use data analysis techniques to identify unusual behaviour.

      If the review finds that the customer's behaviour or information has materially changed, the LFI should risk- rate the customer again. New information gained during this process may cause the LFI to believe that EDD is necessary, or may bring the customer into the category of customers for which EDD is mandatory (i.e. customers that are PEPs, or owned or controlled by PEPs, or their family members or associates; and customers that are based in high-risk jurisdictions).

      LFIs may consider requiring that the customer update them as to any changes in its beneficial ownership or business activities. Even if this requirement is in place, however, LFIs should not rely on the customer to notify it of a change, but should still update CDD on a schedule appropriate to the customer's risk rating.

    • 3.2.1.4.2 Transaction Monitoring

      LFIs must monitor activity by all customers to identify behaviour that is potentially suspicious and that may need to be the subject of an STR (see section 3.3 below). As with all customer types, LFIs that use automated monitoring systems should apply rules with appropriate thresholds and parameters that are designed to detect common typologies for illicit behaviour. When monitoring and evaluating transactions, the LFI should take into account all information that it has collected as part of CDD, including the identities of beneficial owners. For example, a series of transactions between two unconnected companies may not be cause for an alert. But if the companies are all owned or controlled by the same individual(s), the LFI should investigate to make sure that the transactions have a legitimate economic purpose.

      Where possible, monitoring systems should also flag unusual behaviour that may indicate that a customer's business has changed—for example, a first transfer to or from a high-risk jurisdiction, or a large transaction involving a new counterparty. LFIs should follow up on such transactions with the customer to discover whether the customer has changed its business activities in such a way as to require a higher risk rating.

      Sample red flags for illicit behaviour involving DPMS and the real estate sector are provided in the Annex to this Guidance.

    • 3.2.1.4.3 EDD: Ongoing Monitoring

      When customers are higher risk, monitoring should be more frequent, intensive, and intrusive. LFIs should review the CDD files of higher risk customers on a frequent basis, , such as every six or nine months for very high-risk customers. The methods LFIs use to review the account should also be more intense and should not rely solely on information supplied for the customer. For example, LFIs should consider:

       Manually reviewing all transactions on the account on a quarterly basis, rather than a sample of transactions (as discussed above, such manual review should be in addition to automated transaction monitoring). Manual review can take the form of reviewing individual transactions, or of using data analysis to determine information about the customer's activity (e.g., overall percentage of counterparties in high-risk jurisdictions; new jurisdictions of activity compared to last quarter; overall percentage of transactions that are round numbers, etc.) that would not be apparent to automated transaction monitoring systems;
       
       Conducting site visits at the customer's premises and requesting a meeting with the customer's managing director or Chief Financial Officer;
       
       Conducting searches of public databases, including news and government databases, to independently identify material changes in a customer's ownership or business activities or to identify adverse media reports. Searches for adverse media should include relevant key words, including, but not limited to, allegation, fraud, corruption, and laundering.
       

      In addition, higher-risk customers should be subject to more stringent transaction monitoring, such as lower thresholds for alerts and more intensive investigation.