Keep an eye on Mega Bank
Under the settlement provision of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Consent Order announced on Aug. 19, Mega International Commercial Bank’s New York branch should do the following:
One, within 10 days of executing the order, pay the entire US$180 million fine, engage an independent compliance consultant and select an independent monitor; two, within 30 days, retain an independent monitor; three, within 60 days, complete a compliance review and submit a compliance report that includes all known or suspected violations of law, or suspicious transactions to law enforcement and supervisory authorities; four, engage a compliance consultant for up to six months to oversee and address deficiencies in Mega Bank New York’s compliance function; five, retain an independent monitor for a minimum of two years to conduct a review of Mega Bank New York’s money laundering compliance program and a lock-back review of the bank’s US currency clearing transactions from Jan. 1, 2012, to Dec. 31, 2014, to determine whether it properly identified and reported all transactions occurring at, by, or through the branch in accordance with the applicable money laundering and Office of Foreign Assets Control laws and regulations.
The US dollar value of credit transactions between Mega Bank NY and Colon FTZ was US$3.5 billion in 2013 and and US$2.4 billion in 2014. Corresponding figures for the Panama City branch were US$1.1 billion and US$4.5 billion.
Now the first 30 days is over, what has been done? There is no report of Mega International Commercial Bank’s voluntary action, but the Financial Supervisory Commission fined it NT$10 million (US$318,167). The bank is not allowed to set up new overseas branches until it improves internal management and dismisses former chairman Mckinney Tsai (蔡友才), former president Wu Hann-ching (吳漢卿), vice president Liang Mei-chi (梁美琪), chief audit officer Liu Hsiao-ling (劉小鈴) and chief compliance officer Chen Tien-lu (陳天祿), as well as New York branch president Huang Shih-ming (黃士明).
Will the commission’s requirements meet New York DFS’ order provision? Not at all. Mega Bank is required to engage an independent compliance consultant, select and retain an independent monitor. It has done nothing, but claims irregular transactions did not constitute suspicious activity.
Well, it is standard practice that wire transfers to a closed bank account are returned to the sender, a regulatory filing is required around the world, so why not for transactions from Mega Bank NY to Mega Bank Panama? That absolutely constitutes a suspicious activity.
As the DFS report said in Article 21.d: “A significant number of reported debit authorizations processed by Mega-NY between 2010 and 2014 occurred when the Panamanian beneficiary accounts identified in the underlying transactions were closed by the Colon FTZ Branch because of inadequate Know-Your-Customer documentation received by that branch — a highly suspicious level of activity. Moreover, most of these accounts were open for less than two years; a number were open even less than one year — further evidence of very questionable activity. The suspicious nature of this activity is compounded by the fact that the remitters and beneficiaries associated with many of the Suspicious Payment Reversals were identical parties; in some cases, the original payment instructions were sent months after the beneficiary accounts had already been closed. Moreover, the Suspicious Payment Reversals continued at least into 2015.”
Obviously, the commission did not do its job correctly. The commission’s NT$10 million fine is not a solution to this case. Instead it highlights the urgent need for citizen oversight.
Why did Mega Bank open two branches in Panama, which has historically been recognized as a high-risk jurisdiction for money laundering? Did it simply break money laundering laws or, worse, did it chose to flagrantly disregard regulations and participate in money laundering?
Mega Bank must frankly disclose the suspicious transactions from 2010 to last year, and reveal who the senders and recipients were. A cover-up will always make things worse.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS