Lesson from Westpac: If you can’t do the simple things correctly, watch out
By 
Martin Woods2020-05-05T16:59:00
If a bank or a firm cannot execute on the simple things, such as cash transaction reporting, there is little reason to be confident of compliance in other more complex and challenging areas.
Related articles
-
ArticleWestpac set to pay record $912.6M civil penalty for AML failures
Westpac is bracing for a record AUD$1.3 billion (U.S. $912.6 million) civil penalty issued by Australia’s financial crime regulator related to a money-laundering scandal and the facilitation of child exploitation in the Philippines and Southeast Asia.
-
ArticleAnalysis: Let Westpac’s missteps be a cautionary tale
By balking at original allegations, Westpac opened itself to infinitely more harm, writes financial crime expert Martin Woods.
-
ArticleWestpac outlines compliance failures that led to AML breaches
An internal report outlining compliance failures by Australia-based financial institution Westpac that led to 23 million breaches of the country’s AML/CTF laws concluded “a mix of technology and human error” were to blame.
More from Regulatory Enforcement
-
ArticleFormer startup CEO gets 7 years in prison for $175M fraud against JPMorgan Chase
Charlie Javice, a former CEO who duped JPMorgan Chase into purchasing her start up company for $175 million, has been ordered to forfeit more than $22 million by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to spend 7 years in jail.
-
ArticleGeorgia Tech to pay $875,000 for allegations brought by compliance officers
Georgia Tech Research Corp. (GTRC) has agreed to pay $875,000 to settle allegations first raised by two compliance officers that its cybersecurity protocols violated acceptable standards for defense contractors, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said.
-
ArticleTractor Supply Company hit with $1.35M fine for alleged California privacy violations
Tractor Supply Company has agreed to get into compliance with California’s consumer privacy law and to pay a $1.35 million fine—the largest yet by California—to settle allegations it violated the privacy rights of customers and job applicants.