Tag: Banking and Finance

At the end of March 2015 the Dubai Financial Services Authority (the “DFSA”) imposed its largest fine to date on Deutsche Bank AG Dubai (DIFC Branch) (“Deutsche Bank”). The size of the fine, US$10.5 million, is perhaps modest when compared to the recent GBP 126 million (US$189 million) fine handed to Bank of New York Mellon by the UK regulator, but it is significant in the context of the DIFC, particularly when you appreciate that Deutsche Bank is one of the larger and more important financial institutions in the Centre. The fine sends a clear signal that the DFSA is both independent, and unafraid of taking on sophisticated and well-resourced opponents.

 

The fine is also a reminder that a cover up can often be worse than the initial crime. Sources close to the DFSA have confirmed that the regulator is unlikely to have taken any formal action against Deutsche Bank if the bank had disclosed its initial breach in a timely manner. As is made very clear in the Decision Notice published on the DFSA website, the bulk of the fine is based upon the fact that Deutsche Bank not only failed to cooperate with the DFSA investigation, but also actively mislead the DFSA and provided false information to the regulator.

 

During a three-year period beginning in January 2011, Deutsche Bank operated in a manner that was contrary to certain provisions of the DFSA Rulebook. The bank’s private wealth management team in the DIFC was providing some advisory services to high-net-worth individuals without documenting these individuals as clients of the DIFC branch. In summary, Deutsche Bank is authorized by the DFSA to provide the financial services of, amongst others, arranging and advising. This was the case during the relevant period, and continues to date. Also, there is no suggestion that the advisory services provided were anything other than competent and professional. The investigation found that there was no evidence of financial detriment to the bank’s clients. Furthermore, this does not seem to be a case of rogue individuals inside the bank improperly chasing bonuses or commissions.

 

The only thing Deutsche Bank did wrong (at least initially) was to fail to document high-net-worth individuals as clients of the DIFC branch. The business model that the bank was meant to be following was for the individuals to be referred by the DIFC branch to other parts of the Deutsche Bank group (including but not limited to branches in Geneva and Luxembourg). This was being done (and the clients properly documented in those booking centres) but the DIFC private wealth management team continued to be in touch with the clients, and therefore provided the previously mentioned advisory services. If they had simply issued a DIFC client agreement, and complied with the standard DIFC KYC and AML procedures, all would have been well. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and the DFSA became aware that Deutsche Bank might have been uncompliant in these areas.

 

It was at this point that the senior management within Deutsche Bank made some startling errors of judgment. Amongst other things, false and misleading emails and letters were sent to the DFSA by the bank’s compliance team. Internal reports about possible breaches of the DFSA Rulebook were suppressed. Bank employees were encouraged to amend internal reports to remove references to regulatory breaches. The bank then refused to comply with a DFSA notice requiring the production of various documents. This then compelled the DFSA to seek a DIFC court order to enforce the notice.

 

The DFSA’s investigation into the breaches at Deutsche Bank took two-and-a-half years to resolve. The final six months were apparently spent negotiating the wording of the published Decision Notice. The bank obtained a 20 percent discount on the total amount of the fine by agreeing not to appeal or otherwise contest the fine. Unlike many of the other notices or undertakings published by the regulator in other matters, no specific names are mentioned in the Deutsche Bank notice. The blushes of the relevant people at Deutsche Bank have therefore been spared. Nonetheless, this must have been an embarrassing episode for the bank, and something of a success for the DFSA. ■

Background

 

The implementation of a system for effecting payments by direct debit in the UAE is the latest effort by the UAE Central Bank to modernize and streamline the system for individuals and companies to meet their financial obligations. It is widely anticipated that the UAE Direct Debit System (DDS) will lead to a more efficient and secure system for payments.

 

The UAE Central Bank has published an extensive set of rules to assist financial institutions, corporates and individuals in understanding how the DDS can help them with their day-to-day operations and what they must do to ensure that they are compliant with the applicable rules.

 

The implementation of the DDS will change the landscape for electronic payments in the UAE. It offers corporates and individuals the ability to make automated recurring payments electronically which will have consequences for the manner in which financial institutions offer their products and collect payments from customers. It is important to understand the full impact of these changes before they come into effect.

 

Set out below are some of the key features of the new system as well as an overview of the three main parties who will be involved in the DDS.

 

Parties Involved in the DDS

 

In addition to the customer or payer who will use the DDS to pay recurring bills/payments, three parties will be involved in completing the cycle of payment.

 

1. The Originator – A financial institution or corporate entity (referred to under the DDS as the “Originator”) may use the DDS to collect payments from its customers by direct debit. An Originator must also meet specific regulatory thresholds set by the UAE Central Bank and is required to provide a broad indemnity to other users of the DDS.

 

1. The Sponsoring Bank – Each Originator is required to appoint a sponsor (referred to under the DDS as the “Sponsoring Bank”) in order to use the DDS. The Sponsoring Bank will provide the Originator with access to the DDS and will assist in the processing of direct debit payments. The Sponsoring Bank shall, in summary, act as a conduit for payment requests from Originators and payments flowing from customers of the Originator (or Payers as referred to under the DDS) to the Originator. The Sponsoring Bank shall be responsible for collecting payments due to the Originator. The Originator remains, subject to some limitations, at liberty to appoint more than one Sponsoring Bank. The Sponsoring Bank may also be an Originator.

 

1. The Paying Bank – Each Payer who wishes to make payment to an Originator will require a bank account with a so called “Paying Bank” that is registered with the DDS. The Paying Bank shall be responsible for effecting the required payment from the Payer’s account to the relevant Originator’s Sponsoring Bank.

 

Dispute Resolution

 

It is noteworthy to mention that that the DDS will provide a dedicated mechanism for dispute resolution. This process involves communication between the parties involved and allows for final approach to the UAE courts if a resolution is not achieved.

 

Implications of the DDS on your business

 

Since all commercial banks in the UAE are obliged to undertake the roles of a Sponsoring Bank and a Paying Bank in the DDS, the DDS has the potential to change the way in which financial institutions in the UAE operate their businesses and will consequently impact a broad spectrum of businesses and individuals. It is also mandatory for all financial institutions in the UAE providing credit facilities (such as personal loans, car loans and mortgages) to act as an Originator.

 

In Conclusion

 

Afridi & Angell has developed specialist knowledge of the rules that apply in relation to entities participating in the DDS and is able to offer market leading advice and assistance in the preparation of the required documents in order to enable participation in the DDS. ■

 

For advice in connection with the DDS, its implementation and the consequences it may have for your business and operations, please contact Amjad Ali Khan or Danielle Lobo, or get in touch with your usual contact at Afridi & Angell for further assistance.