ACAMS Today Magazine (March-May 2011) Vol. 10 No. 2 | Page 26

AML CHALLENGES Know Your Employees — A matter of trust Prospective employees are screened in a variety of ways during the application process. Once employed, methods are used to monitor productivity and trace misappropriated funds or allegations of fraud. But there is a lack of real-time review of either new or established employees to determine if they are engaging in inappropriate behavior before that behavior shows up as a loss for the bank. This provides criminal fraud rings with the ability to infiltrate an institution by placing a new employee of their own or compromising an existing one. For example, a fraud ring pays young individuals to apply for teller positions in order to steal customer information. After limited training, these new employees often have the ability to access almost all accounts across the portfolio, including signature cards, with no numerical, geographical or other restrictions. No alerts are generated even if a new employee accesses hundreds of accounts with no transactions following any of them. These new employees will often work for only a few weeks and will leave the bank’s employ before the criminal ring begins to make unauthorized withdrawals from the accessed customer accounts. On the opposite end of the spectrum are long-term employees — often ones who have been internally promoted. They are in positions of trust and their performance reviews tend to highlight their productivity and not focus on whether the accounts they opened, or loans they closed, have resulted in fraud. The expectation that they will continue to produce, or some external financial pressure, can make them susceptible to criminal fraud rings’ efforts to compromise them. For example, a long-term bank employee who was a branch manager developed a drug habit. To make extra money, he began training a group of criminals in the bank’s procedures regarding opening business accounts and obtaining loans. He advised the fraud ring regarding the documents they needed and interceded on their behalf with the loan department to make sure their business loans closed, even though he knew that they did not have any legitimate business. For his effort, he received a percentage of each loan that closed. As a branch manager, his name did not appear on any paperwork. He gave the account opening and loan closing credit to other branch personnel. None of the loans, which totaled more than $2 million, 26 Institutions that understand the true scope and profile of internal fraud risk will be better positioned to protect all their assets were ever repaid, and the accounts were used to launder the ring’s money. Real-time review of both new and existing employees would have aided the bank in identifying the fraud and determining who was responsible. A comparison of employee access records and productivity changes across the branch, within a narrow geographic zone, or portfolio-wide, would help to identify anomalous behavior that could then result in further investigation. The call center — Help at any cost Criminal rings need their accounts to stay open in order to further their goals. Yet their behavior often triggers AML alerts that automatically freeze their activity. This leads to contact between members of the criminal organization and the call center. But call center employees are neither trained in, nor rewarded for, identifying potential fraud. Even in the most extreme cases, where callers cannot answer any security questions correctly, there is no procedure for alerting AML, compliance, or investigations to the suspect accounts. Criminal fraud rings take advantage of human nature and the desire for the call-center employee to help them in order continue their fraud. Some examples include: 1. A caller who stated that he did not have his account number or date of birth with him, yet still managed to have the hold removed from his credit card; 2. Members of the fraud ring who advised each other to stay on the line with the call center and keep apologizing “until you get a nice lady who will feel sorry for you;” 3. A caller who could not state his address or phone number, even after receiving hints from the call center representative, yet still had his credit cards unfrozen; 4. Callers who stayed on the phone for more than an hour and were transferred to several different representatives be