by John McCarthy Consulting Ltd. | Nov 10, 2024 | Blog, News
As we saw in last week’s blog almost 42,000 companies (14%) and 239 Societies (25%) were non-compliant with their RBO registration requirements at the end of 2023 – the latest date reported on by the Registrar of Beneficial Ownership.
This position is in stark contrast to the numbers of Discrepancy and Non-Compliance Notices (see more below) that are being filed. One would expect such notices to be increasing when the rate of non-compliance is so high, but in fact the rate of these reports fell by up to 67% between 2022 and 2023! This may be only a temporary phenomenon (see more below), but penalties may follow unless the situation improves.
The Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Act 2021 (the Act) requires ‘designated persons’ (defined in Regulation 20(3)(b) of SI 110 of 2019) such as accountants, law firms, banks and certain other service providers to inspect the RBO register as part of their Customer Due Diligence (CDD) processes before establishing a business relationship with a customer, and to report to the Registrar any:
There are also reporting requirements for what are called ‘relevant persons’ (defined in Regulation 26(1) of SI 110 of 2019) (i.e. regulatory authorities and the Revenue Commissioners, Criminal Assets Bureau and Garda reporting using the DN1 form) but it’s not the purpose of this blog to deal with these.
A ‘discrepancy’ (as defined in legislation) is where:
‘A designated person carrying out customer due diligence on an entity, or otherwise, forms the opinion that there is a discrepancy between the information in the central register (RBO) and the information the entity must hold in its internal register of beneficial ownership, then the designated person shall deliver, in a timely manner, to the Registrar notice of that opinion, specifying the particulars as respects which the foregoing discrepancy exists.’
‘Non-compliance’ (as defined in legislation) is:
‘An official notification to the Registrar stating that, having searched in the RBO Online Portal for the beneficial ownership details of a relevant entity, the person searching has found no beneficial ownership details in the RBO for the particular entity, and is reporting to the Registrar that the entity in question appears to have failed to comply with its obligations under Regulations 20 and 21 of SI 110/2019’
Notices filed in 2023 v 2022
| |
2023 |
2022 |
% change |
|
Discrepancy Notices (DN 2) filed |
2,168 |
3,420 |
-37% |
|
Non-Compliance Notices (NCN) filed |
787 |
2,387 |
-67% |
Potential Cause of the Drop in Reporting
The drop in reporting in both the DN2 and the NCN notices between 2023 and 2022 may be something to do with the lack of access that accountants had to the RBO register after the ECJ decision on November 2022. This problem has since been resolved so one would expect the rate of DN2 and NCN notices to increase in 2024/2025.
For more on engagement and representation letter templates and a variety of CPD webinars on money laundering and other accounting/audit related topics, please go to our website for:
ISQM TOOLKIT, or if you prefer to chat through the different audit risks and potential appropriate responses presented by this new standard. We typically tailor ISQM training and brainstorming sessions to suit your firm’s unique requirements. Please contact John McCarthy FCA by email at john@jmcc.ie.
by John McCarthy Consulting Ltd. | Nov 5, 2024 | Blog, News
Since Statutory Instrument SI 110 came into effect in July 2019, certain entities mainly companies and Industrial & Provident Societies) are obliged to register their beneficial ownership details with the Central Register of Beneficial Ownership of Companies and Industrial and Provident Societies (the RBO).
Since April 2021 a further leg of this AML legislation was enacted under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Act 2021 (the Act). The Act requires accountants (among others) to inspect the RBO as part of their Customer Due Diligence (CDD) before establishing a business relationship with a customer, and to report any:
- discrepancies (as defined) and
- non-compliance (as separately defined) to the Registrar.
Some of the statistics from the RBO’s latest Annual Report for 2023 are shown below.
Companies
These statistics indicate that Companies’ compliance rate with this legislation has improved by 1% from 85% in 2022 to 86% in 2023, still leaving almost 42,000 companies (14%) that are not fully compliant with their RBO obligations by 31 December 2023.
| |
31/12/2023 |
31/12/2022 |
| Live companies required to file with the RBO |
299,496 |
280,721 |
| Companies which had registered beneficial owners with RBO |
258,241 |
239,444 |
| Compliance rate in % terms |
86% |
85% |
Societies
Likewise Industrial &Provident Societies also improved their compliance rate by 1% from 74% in 2022 to 75% in 2023, still leaving 239 societies (or 25%) that are not fully compliant with their RBO obligations at the end of 2023.
| |
31/12/2023 |
31/12/2022 |
| Live societies required to file with the RBO |
941 |
949 |
| Societies which had registered beneficial owners with RBO |
702 |
698 |
| Compliance rate in % terms |
75% |
74% |
For more on engagement and representation letter templates and a variety of CPD webinars on money laundering and other accounting/audit related topics, please go to our website for:
ISQM TOOLKIT, or if you prefer to chat through the different audit risks and potential appropriate responses presented by this new standard. We typically tailor ISQM training and brainstorming sessions to suit your firm’s unique requirements. Please contact John McCarthy FCA by email at john@jmcc.ie.
by John McCarthy Consulting Ltd. | Oct 29, 2024 | Blog, News
The 2023 annual report of the Corporate Enforcement Authority (CEA at www.cea.gov.ie) was published in June 2024, covering the 18 month period from the commencement of the office in July 2022 until 31 December 2023.
During 2022/2023 the CEA received 239 indictable offence reports from companies’ auditors in Republic of Ireland. The nature of the indictable offence reports received by the CEA was quite varied as follows:
- Directors loan breach
- Unqualified auditor
- Inadequate accounting records
- Group accounting standards section 294
- Accounting standards section 291
- False statements in returns
- Approval of financial statements.
Breaches of Section 291 of the Companies Act 2014 had the biggest single concentration of reports which were to do with accounting standards breaches in relation to the preparation and presentation of financial statements in accordance with Irish GAAP and company law.
Indictable offence reports were filed by auditors from the following types of firms:
| Firm |
Number |
% |
| Big 4 |
189 |
79 |
| Mid-Tier |
17 |
7 |
| Smaller firms |
33 |
14 |
| Total |
239 |
100 |
The CEA commented in its report that (our bold text inserted) ‘one significant contributory factor in the context of auditor reporting is a change of auditor. Specifically, it is not unusual, where there has been a change in statutory auditor for a new auditor, having taken a different interpretation of an accounting treatment to their predecessor, to take the view that the submission of a report is necessary’.
During 2022/2023, the sectors with the greatest volume of reports were:
- the aircraft leasing sector, followed by
- the investment and technology sectors
For more on engagement and representation letter templates and a variety of CPD webinars on money laundering and other accounting/audit related topics, please go to our website for:
ISQM TOOLKIT, or if you prefer to chat through the different audit risks and potential appropriate responses presented by this new standard. We typically tailor ISQM training and brainstorming sessions to suit your firm’s unique requirements. Please contact John McCarthy FCA by email at john@jmcc.ie.
by John McCarthy Consulting Ltd. | Oct 22, 2024 | Blog, News
As first reported by Business & Accountancy Daily, scammers are targeting ACCA members in the UK and Ireland, asking members for immediate payment of membership fees in order to renew their practicing certificates and licenses.
The scammers are taking advantage of a very busy period for accountants, especially in Ireland, when more of their concentration is on their clients’ Income Tax and company CRO returns.
Aidan Clifford Advisory Services Manager Ireland at ACCA Ireland said “this one was poorly executed, but it serves to warn people that the next one will be executed better and to be wary. It was circulated in the UK first and then in the Republic of Ireland.
As Aidan said, “there were several give-away signs in the message that it was a fake.
- The e-mail “from” field is not an ACCA address.
- The physical address in the message for ACCA is not a real address. Queen Street is in Glasgow and not in Dublin.
- The named ACCA staff person is not a real ACCA employee; and
- the ACCA logo was wrong.”
“Accountants in public practice will always have public contact information available and will therefore be subject to more frequent phishing. They just need to remain more vigilant”, he said.
We would advise members of the professional accountancy and tax bodies, Chartered Accountants Ireland and the Irish Tax Institute, to be extra vigilant for this and similar scams in the run-up to the New Year when many membership subscriptions fall due for renewal.
For additional guidance, technical documents and CPD on money laundering and other accounting/audit related topics, please go to our website for:
Please go to our website for:
by John McCarthy Consulting Ltd. | Oct 1, 2024 | Blog, News
If you would like to expand your AML knowledge with relevant, interesting and up to date views on the world of money laundering and its prevention, you could do worse than subscribe to the podcast hosted by Graham Barrow and his colleague Ray Blake. It’s called the ‘Dark Money Files’.
The latest episode (from 10 September 2024) deals with the potential problems caused by outsourcing any of your AML obligations, as highlighted in a recent publication by the Australian AML regulator, Austrac. They point out that outsourcing can trigger at least two types of risk:
- MLTF (money laundering and terrorist) risk – i.e. the risk that outsourcing could create vulnerabilities that criminals could exploit and
- AMLCTF Compliance Risk – i.e. the risk that your firm fails, through the outsourcing, to meet its regulatory obligations.
Also Austrac recommends that firms carry out due diligence on the outsourcing provider and suggests there may be data privacy laws that may apply.
For additional guidance, technical documents and CPD on money laundering and other accounting/audit related topics, please go to our website for:
Please go to our website for:
