Money laundering, the illegal use of banking
and other financial channels to hide the
origin and identity of the criminal owner
of the money has been with us for decades.
Traditionally associated with tax evasion
and the Mafia, it was, until the late
1980s, an often neglected problem. It
is of growing global concern, however,
as the narcotics trade has blossomed and
organized crime networks have disposed
of the proceeds of their illegal activities.
Money
laundering is considered as an offence
by all civilised nations. It is one of
the biggest threat to society. The United
Nations have recognised that a great amount
of wealth is generated through organised
crime. The dangers of organised crime
increasing and extending its tentacles
globally have caused much concern to the
United Nations and certain countries which
were at the receiving end. After the September,11th
terrorist attack in the United States,
the war against terrorist funding has
taken momentum.
In
its simplest non-legal terms, money laundering
is, “the processing of criminal
proceeds (profits or other benefits) in
order to disguise their illegal origin”
(The Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Note that the act of money laundering
occurs only after a predicate criminal
offence has been committed to generate
the criminal proceeds, which in turn need
to be laundered to convert them into “legitimate
capital”. This transformation process
has become a thriving business, albeit
quite illegal in most, but not yet all,
countries.
The
process of converting cash or other properties
which has been derived from criminal activities
so as to give it the appearance of having
being obtained from a legitimate source.
Successful Money laundering enable the
criminal to:
-
Remove or distance themselves from criminal
activities from generating the profits.
-
Distance profits from the criminal activities.
-
Enjoy the benefits of the profits which
bring attention to themselves and,
-
Reinvest the profits in future criminal
activities or in legitimate business.
Money
laundering occurs in three stages. The
first is called displacement, which involves
physical disposal of the cash, to move
it into the financial system. The second
stage involves a technique called layering,
which requires moving the money around,
through and to multiple institutions in
different jurisdictions in order to disguise
the audit tail and to make the money in
effect, disappear. The final stage is
called integration, which requires bringing
the money back into the mainstream of
commerce and investment as legitimate
funds.
Actual
cash currency in large amounts is heavy.
For that reason, it must generally be
placed into the financial system to get
it back into circulation. Contrary to
movie and television lore, US$ 1,000,000
will not fit into a briefcase. For example,
US $ 1 Million in US $ 100 bills weighs
22 pounds (10 kilos), US $ 10 Million
in US $ 20 bills weighs 1100 pounds (500
kilos); the same amount in US $ 100 bills
still weighs 220 pounds (100 kilos). US
$ 100 Million in US $ 100 bills weighs
2200 pounds (1000 kilos).
“
…. There are three distinct stages
to the [money laundering] cycle. The first
is immersion, which means consolidation
and placement. A drug dealer who amasses
5 million in cash is faced with the Herculean
task of putting perhaps as many as a million
pieces of paper into the banking system.
Unlike the counterfeiter, who needs to
get his forged notes into circulation,
the laundryman is forced to rely on bank
accounts, postal orders, traveller’s
cheques and other negotiable instruments
to funnel the cash into the banking system.
Continuing
the metaphor, the second step –
known as layering – might also be
called heavy soaping. This is where the
laundryman disassociates his gains from
their illicit source. By moving his money
between as many accounts as he can –
in and out of dummy companies that he’s
set up around the world for just this
purpose – and relying on bank secrecy
and attorney – client privilege
to hide his own identity, he deliberately
creates a complex web of financial transactions
keeping in mind at every step that his
main task here is to obliterate any sort
of audit trail.
The
final stage is in the spin dry –
sometimes described as repatriation and
integration. This is the point where the
washed funds are brought back into circulation,
now in the form of clean, and often taxable,
income”.
(Excerpted
from “The Laundrymen” by Jeffrey
Robinson).
Money
laundering is said to be the world’s
third largest business in terms of value.
And it is growing. How big is it ? Because
of its shadowy character to begin with,
no one knows with any degree of certainty.
Both the experts and competent authorities
have avoided estimating the scope of the
practice,. Evidence points to a volume
of hundreds of billions of US $ per annum.
The IMF and the Financial Action Task
Force using 1996 statistics now estimate
worldwide money laundering to be at a
level of between US $ 600 billion to US
$ 1.5 trillion. The IMF estimates money
laundering to amount to 2 - 5 per cent
of the world’s GDP. But to keep
this vast sum in perspective, the New
York clearing system alone handles US
$ 3.5 trillion in banking and securities
transactions on average business day.
In
1998 it was estimated that trade in counterfeit
goods amounted to 7 – 9 per cent
of world trade, up from about 3 per cent
in 1990. The World Trade Organisation
(WTO) and ICC calculate that trade in
counterfeit goods in 2000 was about US
$ 450 billion. The proceeds of trading
derived from intellectual property violations
must pass through the money laundering
systems.
An
important issue is corporate fraud, which
often leads to money laundering. Business
are subject to fraud through simple and
complex deceptions by both insiders –
managers, employees, agents, et al. –
and outsiders. Being a victim of fraud
is embarrassing and expensive and recoveries
are limited. On a wider scale, in the
information age, fraud can be perpetrated
through credit cards, smart cards, stored
value cards, e-money, e-commerce, identity
theft, etc. Technology helps both the
good and the evil.
The
element of fraud involved in the deliberate
falsification of company accounts by insiders,
whether employees or senior management,
is a principal concern of corporate governance.
These frauds can be the subject of civil
or criminal proceedings depending on the
individual country. If this falsification
is compounded by an effort to launder
the funds illegally received, the legal
implications can be very serious indeed.
In the years 2001 and 2002 a number of
massive corporate frauds have been uncovered
and caused the collapse of major corporations.
The
experts have noted little difference in
the ways that terrorists and other criminals
use the financial and other systems to
launder money. The methods identified
include in each smuggling by couriers
or bulk cash shipments; structured transactions,
both into and from bank accounts; purchases
of money instruments in various forms
and movements of funds via the non-bank
or underground systems.
The
techniques used in money laundering can
be broken down into funds channelled through
three principal conduits; (a) banking
(b) non-bank institutions and (c) non-financial
business. Summarized, these channels and
their most common laundering techniques
are as follows :
-
Large deposits and transfers
-
False
name accounts
-
Accounts
of friends, relatives and cronies
-
Smurfing
(electronic structured transactions
of electronic cash)
-
Shell
and front companies, usually offshore,
for layering transactions
-
Lawyers,
accountants, consultants, trustees,
fiduciaries
-
Private
Investment Corporations (PICs)
-
Collection
accounts; special name accounts; correspondent
and concentration accounts
-
Acquisition
of compliant banks
-
Payable
through account
-
Loan
back arrangements swaps and option
-
Telegraphic
transfers (TT) (SWIFT)
-
Bank
drafts, money orders, cashier’s
cheque
-
Cash
deposits and withdrawal
-
Smuggling
currency in bulk across border
-
Traveller’s
cheque
-
Internet
banking and electronic purse accounts
and
-
Internet
shell bank
-
Bureaus de change, exchange offices,
casas de cambi
-
Money
remittance services (giro houses)
-
Underground
or ‘parallel banking’ “Black
Market Peso Exchange”, ‘hawala’,
‘hundi’. ‘feiqian’,
chit and chop shops which handle both
legal and illegal foreign exchange transactions
in India, South and East Asia, the Middle
East and Africa
-
Single
premium insurance products
-
Postal
services: money orders, packages (for
smuggling cash)
-
Professional facilitators, e.g. lawyers,
accountants, financial advisors, notaries,
secretarial companies, trustees and
other fiduciaries
-
Systems
based on trust and loyalty (see ‘hawala’
above)
-
Real
businesses: false invoicing, commingling
of legal and illegal money, loan back
arrangements, layering of transactions
through offshore shell companies and
false import/export declaration
-
Commercial
trade transactions through Free Trade
Zone
-
Casinos,
bookmaking, internet casinos/gambling
-
Real
estate companies
-
Purchase
and cross-border delivery of precious
metal
-
Use
of warrants in the metals market. Or
-
False
insurance claims – ghost ship
In a study by the FATF on money laundering
typologies, “gate keepers”
such as some lawyers and accountants,
were highlighted as the common elements
in complex money laundering schemes. Money
launderers often target struggling professional
practices that are in financial difficulties,
as the latter may find it hard to turn
away lucrative business , high risk or
not. The FATF reports that lawyers are
mostly utilized in establishing corporate
entities through which money can be laundered
by their clients or by providing the use
of bank accounts (client accounts).
There
are also charities and NGOs established
in order to legitimately receive donations
that stem for criminal activities and
to fund terrorist activities. Some solicitors
arrange to hold funds in their clients’
accounts or in an off-shore trust, making
the identification of the true beneficiary
impossible. Other services offered by
lawyers include advising on complex financial
transactions and investment schemes. The
law firms in question are not expected
to become involved, but rather to serve
as a shield to give third parties confidence.
It
is commonly believed that the internet
provides new and undetectable methods
of money laundering (“cyber laundering”).
However, in essence, the internet is nothing
more than a messaging system. To move
money, banks move information by different
kinds of messaging systems.
Identifying
customers is the primary problem arising
from internet usage. Characteristics of
internet banking (easy access, depersonalised
contact between customer and financial
institutions and the speed of electronic
transactions) make customer identification
and the monitoring of transactions difficult
for the authorities.
While
AML laws have been or are being adopted
in over 120 countries, no country yet
requires its financial institutions to
detect money laundering. Realistically,
the most they can do is to require that
‘suspicious transactions’
(hard to define) be reported , subject
to a plethora of regulations and policies.
Despite the pressing need, which is slowly
being recognized by nation states, the
effectiveness of anti-money laundering
laws has been mixed, ie. it is better
than having no laws at all, but falls
far short of the ideal of strict, fair
and universal enforcement with well-knit
international cooperation within and between
governments, regulatory and supervisory
authorities, law enforcement agencies,
the judiciary and the private sector.
As usual, vigorous enforcement is limited
to too few countries.
At
a regional level, several organizations
have adopted conventions or other agreements
to combat terrorism, including regulations
concerning money laundering and/or designated
laws that solely tackle money laundering.
For example: the European Union in November
2001 widened the scope of the original
EU money laundering directive in its Second
EU Money Laundering Directive (Directive
2001/97/EC) amending Council Directive
91/308/EEC. The Directive requires EU
member states to update their national
legislation by June 2003. It criminalizes
laundering the proceeds of all serious
crimes: extends its applicability to a
series of non-financial professionals
who are believed to offer or provide vital
services for criminals (e.g., casinos,
bureaus de change, auctioneers, lawyers,
notaries, estate agents, fund transporters
and dealers in high cost goods); extends
the ‘KYC’ record keeping and
suspicious transaction reporting requirement
to external accountants and auditors,
notaries, lawyers and others.
-
1998 BIS – Basel Committee on
Banking Supervision – Prevention
of criminal use of the banking systems
for the purpose of money laundering;
-
1990
Council of Europe Convention on Laundering,
Search, Seizure and Confiscation of
the Proceeds of Crime;
-
1992
Resolution of International Organisation
of Securities Commission (IOSCCO)
-
2001
Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence
Units – Statement of Purpose;
-
2000
& 2002 Wolfsberg Group of Banks
– Guidelines
A number of individual countries enacted
new legislation on money laundering or
extended laws that were already in place,
Some did so under pressure by the FATF,
others in a voluntary attempt to intensify
the fight against terrorist financing.
-
China : The People’s Bank of China
(Central Bank) AML Regulations –
effective March, 1, 2003.
-
UK
: Proceeds of Crime Bill 2002 &
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000,
Anti Terrorism Act, Crime and Security
2001:
-
US
: International Money Laundering Abatement
and Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA
Patriot Act) signed into law in October,
26, 2001. This landmark legislation
contains provisions enhancing US domestic
security, improving surveillance procedures,
cutting off sources of terrorist finance,
protecting US borders and providing
for the victims of terrorism.
-
Russia
established a Committee of Financial
Monitoring in November 2001 that will
operate as the country’s financial
intelligence unit (FIU)
-
Israel
issued regulations in the identification
of and reporting of suspicious transaction
and record-keeping for stock exchange
members, portfolio managers, insurance
companies and provident funds in November,
2001.
-
Philippines
: Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001;
-
Guatemala
: Act against Money and Asset Laundering
2001;
-
St.
Vincent and Grenadines : Proceeds of
Crime and Money Laundering Prevention
Act 2001 :
-
Canada
: Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering
Act) 2001
-
Bahamas
: Financial and Corporate Services Providers
Act 2000, amended 2001
There
are seven concepts in the USA Patriot
Act which concepts you need to be aware
of if you are to continue doing business
in the world, or at least if you plan
to continue doing business in dollars.
The seven are :-
1.
A legal requirement that the financial
institution know their customers
2. An authorization for the Secretary
of the Treasury to take steps, or special
measures, if he perceives a money-laundering
problem in the future
3. Enhanced due diligence for private
banking
4. Serious changes for correspondent
banking that will affect all of you
5. A near prohibition of shell
banks being allowed to use money transmission
and other value transmission systems in
the United States
6. Inclusion in the statutory schemes
of prohibitions against money laundering
by brokerage firms, which until now have
avoided the worst burden of the war against
money laundering, and
7. Authorization for financial
institutions to share information.
First
the statute requires that financial institutions
know their customers. It does not define
the term KYC (“Know Your Customer”)
but the statute for the first time requires
that financial institutions in fact know
the identities of the persons for whom they
are acting. That is critical, because in
tracking terrorists one needs to be able
to rely on accurate financial records, and
if the identity of the owner of an account,
or the person who directs the flow of money
is concealed, the trail is broken. Money
is power. The anonymous use of money is
the anonymous use of power.
The regulations on how to “know your
customer” are not going to be exclusive.
It will not be enough to fill out a checklist
and say “This Bank has complied”.
The proof of whether you know your customer
will come when law enforcement tries to
ascertain who moved a particular sum of
money. The question “who?” needs
to be answered with a name, not with a well
filled out checklist. The people asking
the questions believe that they are at war.
‘Whether you agree with them or not
they are likely to view a useless answer
(one which they cannot follow up) as a violation
by your institution of the Patriot Act.
The
next section of the law authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to take ‘special measures’
to fight money laundering when he perceives
a problem. These measures can be directed
at a country, a geographic area, a financial
institution, or a sector of the economy.
This is an attempt to create flexibility
to deal with new money laundering practices
as we become aware of them. Over the years
the sophistication of the money launderers
for the Colombian drug dealers has increased
greatly; law enforcement is constantly several
years behind the cutting edge of the new
techniques. This section is designed, in
part, to speed up the reaction time for
law enforcement.
The
third area of concern is private banking.
The USA Patriot Act requires enhanced due
diligence for private bank accounts, and,
in a move with which some bank regulators
may well not be in agreement, requires serious
due diligence in connection with bank accounts
of political leaders and their associates.
You are aware, from the cases with Marcos,
with Abacha, with Mobutu and Suharto and
others, that allegations arise from time
to time that a man has looted his country.
These tend to be supported by such events
as the deposit into one bank account for
a salaried Mexican of 500 years salary,
totalling $80 Million, ostensibly saved
while his brother was President of Mexico.
The
fourth subject in the USA Patriot Act is
the most important for Asian bankers –
the area of correspondent banking. All correspondent
banks, as defined, must appoint an agent
in the United States for the service of
process. The Secretary of the Treasury and
the Attorney General are specifically authorised
to issue subpoenas for the production of
evidence from any correspondent bank using
the money transmission facilities of the
United States. The evidence that is sought
need not ever have been in the United States,
nor does the evidence sought have to be
about dollar transactions. The reasoning
is that if an institution wants to do business
in the United States it must be prepared
to make evidence available for the prosecution
of those who violate our laws.
If
a bank chooses to use correspondent facilities
in the United States, it agrees to produce
evidence in the United States when compelled
to do so by subpoena. If, after due notice,
a correspondent bank does not produce the
required evidence, the US bank which clears
for it, on a request from the government,
must close the correspondent account within
ten days.
All
correspondent banks in the United States
must have in the United States an agent
authorized to accept the service of process.
If process is served on them they must comply,
regardless of any bank secrecy laws in the
jurisdiction in which the accounts are maintained,
or else leave the United States.
In
addition banks licensed in the United States
are now required to make certain that the
banks for whom they act as correspondents
have adequate internal due diligence procedures
so that if subpoenaed they will be not just
willing to comply, but be able to do so.
The initial verification of that took an
enormous amount of work, performed between
October 26 and Christmas Day 2001, in large
part by bankers who lost friends in the
World Trade Centre.
Shell
banks are the fifth area to which the PATRIOT
Act relates. The law does its best to bar
them from the United States, directly or
indirectly. By “shell banks”
the statute refers to banks with no physical
presence anywhere, which may be licensed,
but cannot be supervised or regulated because
there is no where for the supervisor or
regulator to go. Banks based in the USA
are forbidden to have shell banks as customers,
and are now required to exercise due diligence
to make sure that their correspondent banks
do not have shell banks as customers, either.
That means that shell banks, to do business
in the United States, will need to go through
at least three levels of correspondent banks,
paying multiple sets of fees to move money.
The
Patriot Act brings brokerage firms under
the coverage of the anti-money laundering
laws, by the definition of ‘financial
institution’ which it adopts. There
are, as yet, some major unanswered questions
as to what aspects of the brokerage business
will be covered – clearly deposit
taking is covered, but what is the liability
of firms as regards the identity of clients
acting through off-shore hedge funds whose
membership is secret ? The People , who
wrote the rules, are insisting the brokerage
industry must be as transparent as the field
of correspondent banking. It is worth repeating
that Congress intended to make the entire
area of financial services transparent to
law enforcement so that money being used
to fund terrorists could be traced, and
the sources of that money, and the people
responsible, identified.
In
one section of the law Congress provided
that institutions which announced that they
were doing it could share information with
each other, thus making more transparent
to each other whether a transaction was
proper or not. The ability to share information
cuts the uncertainty about transactions
and thereby cuts the effort that compliance
officers have to spend, cutting the costs
for everyone. As with the other section
of law, the purpose is to increase transparency,
so that if there is a need to trace funds,
they can be traced. Likewise there are sections
permitting banks to exchange information
about former employees, and the like. Sections
setting forth what constitutes adequate
identification and the like are also coming
into play now some with Treasury regulations,
some without.
All
business should be wise to be alert to money
laundering methods and tactics, For their
own protection, businesses should implement
AML defences and counter-measures, and install
various other forms of protection.
In
Sri Lanka there is no legislation to curb
anti money laundering activities. There
are only certain guide lines from the Central
Bank to Licensed Commercial Banks with regard
to money laundering activities. It is understood,
that a new legislation with regard to anti
money laundering has already been drafted
and will be presented to the parliament
in the near future.
In
the draft Act to prohibit money laundering
in Sri Lanka there is provision to establish
an anti money laundering authority and it
stipulates the powers, functions and duties
of the AML authority. Section 4 of the draft
Act defines the offence of money laundering
as follows:
“Any
person who receives, possesses, conceals,
invests, disposes of, brings into Sri Lanka,
transfers out of Sri Lanka or engages in
any other manner in any transaction in relation
to any property derived or realized directly
or indirectly from any unlawful activity
or from the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
knowing or having reason to believe that
such property is derived or realized directly
or indirectly from any unlawful activity
or the proceeds thereof, shall be guilty
of the offence of money laundering and shall
on conviction after trial before the High
Court be liable to a fine not less than
twice the value of the property in respect
of which the offence was committed and not
more than three times that value or to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of not less than
five years and not more than twenty years
or to both such fine and imprisonment, and
shall be liable to have property forfeited”.
FATF
the world watch dog on AML activities has
revised its forty recommendations at its
meeting held in Germany in June this year.
These forty recommendations are instructions
for financing regulations to reflect new
dangers from money laundering by criminal
and terrorists groups. The new rules seek
tough checks on high risks business areas,
such as, correspondent banking, or dealings
with persons who have questionable political
history. They have also included casinos,
real estates agents, dealers in precious
metals and stones. Accountants and lawyers
should now be subject to money laundering
checks.
This meeting also identified smuggling organised
crime and trafficking in humans and drugs
as also offences contributing to the offence
of money laundering.
The
FATF forty recommendations were initially
compiled in 1990 and were revised in 1996.
Now FATF have again revised the forty recommendations.
It also agreed on certain international
best practices on combating illicit money
transfers where under-ground banks operate
internet cafes, travel agencies and export
import companies. These were seen as major
channels through which terrorists transfer
money.
The forty recommendations are divided into
four major categories. They are:
1.
Legal Systems
2.
Measures to be taken by financial institutions
and non financial businesses and professions
to prevent money laundering and terrorists
financing
3.
Institutional and other measures, necessary
in systems for combating money laundering
and terrorists money laundering
4.
International co-operation
Money
laundering methods and techniques change
in response to developing counter measures.
The FATF has observed increasingly sophisticated
combination of techniques, such as the increased
use of legal persons to disguise the true
ownership and control illegal proceeds and
an increased use of professionals to provide
advice and assistance in laundering criminal
funds. The FATF calls upon all countries
to take necessary steps to bring their national
systems for combating money laundering and
terrorist financing into compliance with
the new FATF recommendations and to effectively
implement these measures.
The
FATF has eight special recommendations
on terrorist financing. Recognising the
vital importance of taking action to combat
the financing of terrorism it has set
out the basic frame work to detect, prevent
and suppress the financing of terrorism
and terrorist acts. They are :
Each
country should take immediate steps to
ratify and to implement fully the 1999
United Nations International Convention
for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism.
Countries
should also immediately implement the
United Nations resolutions relating to
the prevention and suppression of the
financing of terrorist acts, particularly
United Nations Security Council Resolution
1373.
Each
country should criminalise the financing
of terrorism, terrorist acts and terrorist
organisations. Countries should ensure
that such offences are designated as money
laundering predicate offences.
Each
country should implement measures to freeze
without delay funds or other assets of
terrorists, of those who finance terrorism
and terrorist organisations in accordance
with the United Nations resolutions relating
to the prevention and suppression of the
financing of terrorist acts.
Each
country should also adopt and implement
measures, including legislative ones,
which would enable the competent authorities
to seize and confiscate property, that
is the proceeds of, or used in, or intended
or allocated for use in, the financing
of terrorism, terrorist acts or terrorist
organisations.
If
financial institutions, or other businesses
or entities subject to anti-money laundering
obligations, suspect or have reasonable
grounds to suspect that funds are linked
or related to, or are to be used, for
terrorism, terrorist acts or by terrorist
organisations, they should be required
to report promptly their suspicious to
the competent authorities.
Each
country should afford another country,
on the basis of a treaty, arrangement
or other mechanism for mutual legal assistance
or information exchange, the greatest
possible measure of assistance in connection
with criminal, civil enforcement, and
administrative investigations, inquiries
and proceedings relating to the financing
of terrorism, terrorist acts and terrorist
organisations. Countries should also take
all possible measures to ensure that they
do not provide safe havens for individuals
charged with the financing of terrorism,
terrorist acts or terrorist organisations,
and should have procedures in place to
extradite, where possible, such individuals.
Each
country should take measures to ensure
that persons or legal entities, including
agents, that provide a service for the
transmission of money or value, including
transmission through an informal money
or value transfer system or network, are
licensed or registered and subject to
all the FATF Recommendations that apply
to banks and non-bank financial institutions.
Each country should ensure that persons
or legal entities that carry out this
service illegally are subject to administrative,
civil or criminal sanctions.
Countries
should take measures to require financial
institutions, including money remitters
to include accurate and meaningful originator
information (name, address and account
number) on funds transfers and related
messages that are sent, and the information
should remain with the transfer or related
message through the payment chain.
Countries
should take measures to ensure that financial
institutions, including money remitters,
conduct enhanced scrutiny of an monitor
for suspicious activity funds transfers
which do not contain complete originator
information (name, address and account
number).
Countries
should review the adequacy of laws and
regulations that relate to entities that
can be abused for the financing of terrorism.
Non-profit organisations are particularly
vulnerable and countries should ensure
that they cannot be misused:
(i)
by terrorist organisations posing as legitimate
entities ;
(ii)
to exploit legitimate entities as conduits
for terrorist financing, including for
the purpose of escaping asset freezing
measures ; and
(iii)
to conceal or obscure the clandestine
diversion of funds intended for legitimate
purposes to terrorist organisations.
The Financial Institutions in Sri Lanka
will have to adhere to the forty recommendations
of the FATF on money laundering and the
8 recommendations on terrorist financing
to prevent Sri Lanka being considered
as a country which facilitates money laundering
and terrorist financing. Once the new
legislation on money laundering and terrorist
financing is passed in Parliament, any
breach or non-observance of the laws will
make the Institutions as well as their
Board of Directors liable to prosecution.
Mr.
M. Kiritharan is the Chief Legal
Officer, Bank of Ceylon. He is
a Solicitor, Attorney-at-Law &
Notary Public and holds a Diploma
in Business Administration, University
of Colombo.
Mr
Kiritharan has more than 25 years
experience in the filed of Banking
and Banking Law and has attended
training programmers, Conferences
and Workshops in Australia, Italy,
Singapore and Thailand. He was
a Chief Examiner in the Institute
of Bankers – Sri Lanka and
President of the Association of
Corporate Lawyers of Sri Lanka,
Member of the Bar Council of the
Bar Association, member, Law Committee
of the Sri Lanka Banks’
Assocaition and a Visiting Lecturer
in Banking Law in several Institutions.
|
|
