The verification and exchange of customer due diligence (CDD) data in terms of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001

Abstract

The prevalence of the money laundering crime has prompted the introduction of customer due diligence (CDD) measures. CDD measures facilitate the prevention of money laundering and promote the introduction of certain detective skills. Several international institutions champion the introduction of the detective skills in general and the performing of CDD measures in particular. These institutions acknowledge the cumbersome (administrative and financial) effects of introducing the detective skills and the performing of CDD measures. However, these institutions concedes that the aforementioned burden can be alleviated or lessened if the institutions that are responsible for performing CDD measures, i.e. Accountable Institutions (AIs), can exchange and rely on third parties’ (CDD) data. The exchange and reliance on third parties’ data must however consider the divergent threats or risks that might be associated with the data or third parties. The view regarding the exchanging and relying on third parties’ data is shared by, amongst others, the FATF and the UK. However, South Africa appears to be lagging behind in this respect. In other words, the South African FICA and FICA Regulations omit to encapsulate express and lucid provisions permitting the exchanging and relying on third parties’ data for purposes of performing CDD measures. The aforementioned omission, it is argued, creates a legal vacuum in the South African scheme of anti-money laundering. In other words, the aforesaid vacuum lives the South African AIs in a state of doubt regarding the manner and extent of exchanging and relying on third parties’ data. However, the aforesaid vacuum, this study concedes, can be rectified by introduction provisions that are line with the draft Regulation 5A and 5B that are proposed in chapter seven of this study.