JFSC release Feedback from Transaction Monitoring Questionnaire
The sample of 25 relevant persons included regulated businesses from the following sectors: fund services business (FSB), investment business (IB) and trust company business (TCB). The sample also included the following Schedule 2 businesses: lawyers, estate agents, casinos, and lenders.
Manual vs automated approaches
No relevant persons used a fully automated approach to transaction monitoring with 17 (68%) confirming they use manual transaction monitoring methods both before and after a transaction has taken place. Eight (32%) of the relevant persons confirmed that they used a mix of manual and automated transaction monitoring processes.
When using automated monitoring methods, seven relevant persons confirmed their automated processes operated in real-time. The remaining relevant person’s automated monitoring solution scrutinised transactions post-event.
A number of deficiencies were highlighted by relevant persons relating to existing systems and controls:
One respondent indicated that no routine transaction monitoring was undertaken
Four respondents highlighted that their systems and controls did not require them to record the findings from transaction monitoring reviews
Seven respondents confirmed that there were backlogs in reviewing transactions or related processes
Three respondents indicated that they had identified deficiencies in the oversight of their transaction monitoring processes
Four respondents indicated that they had identified matters in their transaction monitoring policies and procedures that required addressing
Four respondents confirmed that training in relation to transaction monitoring did not take account of Jersey requirements.
Highlighted good practice
There were two areas where a majority of relevant persons that received the questionnaire highlighted areas of best practice in their approaches to scrutinising transactions and monitoring activity:
68% of respondents confirmed that once a transaction monitoring review had been undertaken, they required a second reviewer to sign off its completion
53% indicated that transaction monitoring methods were tested before going live.
Enhancements to consider
Boards and senior management should consider the following actions, to enhance their systems and controls:
Routine monitoring must be undertaken
Systems and controls must record findings arising from transaction monitoring reviews
Where there are backlogs in reviews, deficiencies in oversight, or identified matters that need to be addressed, business should:
escalate to the appropriate level of management
put plans in place to resolve these matters
action these plans in a timely manner.
Training in relation to transaction monitoring must take account of Jersey requirements
A second reviewer’s sign off on transaction monitoring reviews should be considered
Transaction monitoring methods should be tested before going live.
Meet the team of industry experts behind ComsureFind out more
Keep up to date with the very latest news from ComsureFind out more
View our latest imagery from our news and workFind out more
Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us todayGet In Touch
As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email firstname.lastname@example.org.