CFA fined for anti-fraud control failure
LONDON – For the first time, the UK's Financial Services Authority has fined a firm for the failure of its anti-fraud controls.
In late March, the regulator announced that it was fining Capita Financial Administrators, a third party administrator of collective investment schemes, £300,000 for poor anti-fraud controls over client identities and accounts.
According to the FSA, the fraud appears to have been facilitated by colluding CFA staff. The initial frauds were not discovered by CFA but instead were brought to the firm's attention by clients.
"With fraud becoming an increasing menace, firms must fully understand the risks they face and have robust anti-fraud controls in place," said Philip Robinson, Financial Crime Sector leader.
CFA is a third party administrator that is responsible for carrying out client instructions to buy and sell investments. In August 2004, CFA discovered that a client's name and address had been changed and the sale of units was being processed without instructions from the client.
The firm then found that the data for five other clients had been subject to unauthorised changes. Fraudulent requests for payments totalling £1,134,938 had been made but were stopped from going ahead by CFA.
Further payments and attempted payments were uncovered upon further investigation.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules