Last year, Swiss banks and managers reported 6126 cases of suspected money laundering, involving more< than > chf 17 billion in assets. That's twice as many reports as in 2016 and five times more than in
2010. Does this mean that more money of dubious origin is transiting through Switzerland or trying to enter?
This explosion in the number of communications is mainly the result of international pressure. The
financial intermediaries are increasingly denouncing to avoid being sanctioned.
In the financial centre, the fight against money laundering took a turn in December 2016, with the
publication of a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report on Switzerland. This body responsible for
coordinating the fight against money laundering at global level essentially believed that the Swiss
was effective, deserved better explanation but did not generate enough communications. No
explain what this "not enough" really meant.
Until then, Switzerland was criticized because its financial intermediaries reported fewer suspicious cases
than their European counterparts. As a result of this report, several Swiss authorities involved in the
The fight against money laundering has pushed for more communications: the Federal Department
finance, the market surveillance authority (Finma), or the IFC, the State Secretariat for
international financial matters.
In the event of a well money laundering (MROS). This federal entity has twenty days to analyze the file and
decide whether or not to pass it on to a prosecutor. Since 2016, the suspected customer's account is no longer
systematically blocked during the MROS investigation and the customer is no longer notified.
In recent years, financial intermediaries have denounced constant pressure to multiply
reports – pressure from the authorities, sometimes unofficially, but also from auditors, who
relay messages from the various administrations. This climate creates instability for bankers.
A classic example, which probably wouldn't have happened until 2016: a
compliance does not get an answer from a customer on a specific point. From now on, this collaborator
will tend to communicate the case to MROS. Not because the case inspires him well-founded suspicions,
but because he risks being punished if it turns out that he should have communicated immediately. The /> element
Compliance specialists are personally responsible for communications (or lack thereof).
Unprocessed files accumulate
No one is saying that flushing out dirty money is an easy task. A manager may have doubts about the
probity of a client, while having proof that a transaction is completely legal. For example in case
a sale of a building with an official document from a notary.
Another example: a press article attributes contentious behavior to a customer. Increasingly, sa
bank will report it to the MROS. Again without having any contentious elements: the report has become a
reflex, we hear on the financial center. Often, the bank or manager of the customer in question will
reconstruct a suspicion a posteriori, by looking in the client's file or history for facts
that can corroborate the content of the article. Conversely, we can also think that a press article is a clue, on which the compliance department should not close its eyes. Even if the article turns out to be inaccurate
thereafter.
And what happens if the financial intermediary decides not to communicate on this case? Nothing if he has
documented the thinking and research that led him to make this decision. This is how
in the banks memos summarizing this process. Memos that were once written by
informally and which have become fundamental to the reputation of a financial intermediary. No
memo, failure to communicate or to have done so late may be punishable.
As a result, the key element in the fight against money laundering is no longer the search for clues, but the
reaction of the financial intermediary when it becomes aware of a new element.
Due to a lack of sufficient resources, the MROS has seen an accumulation of unprocessed cases in recent years.
Of the 6126 communications received in 2018, 2546 were still being processed as of 31 December
last. Just like more than a thousand dating from 2017 and 2016. With the risk that one of them contains a
bomb.
The anti-money laundering unit may have signaled the beginning of a backlash last March. In a
In the mail, the MROS reminded all financial intermediaries in the country that they should not communicate
eyes closed. But that they had to send reasoned denunciations. Enough to perform a first
sort.