FSI published a brief note that outlines official response of the authorities worldwide to the increasing risks of cyber-attacks, money laundering (ML), and terrorist financing (TF) amid the pandemic-related lockdowns. Authorities worldwide have responded by providing guidance on ways to improve cyber security and mitigate ML and TF risks. Financial authorities are warning financial institutions to be watchful in relation to their IT networks and non-public data, third-party risk, and cyber-security incident response plans and to focus additional effort on staff training and awareness.
The note highlights the financial crime seen so far during the current crisis—when 90% of the banking and insurance workers may be working from home—and summarizes official approaches to strengthening the cyber resilience of financial institutions. It also describes the main anti-money laundering (AML) measures taken by selected authorities worldwide. In response to current and emerging cyber threats, the measures taken by regulatory authorities include:
- Raising awareness through public statements about increasing levels of cyber crime. A few authorities publicly outlined the types of cyber resilience measures undertaken in the context of COVID-19 crisis. An example of this approach is the April 2020 public joint statement by the Bank of Italy and IVASS.
- Providing guidance on the most relevant cyber resilience areas. Some authorities including New York State Department of Financial Services provided guidance on the heightened risks to IT networks and non-public information. Several authorities are emphasizing staff training and awareness at financial institutions. Incidentally, as part of its 2020 work program, FSB is consulting on a toolkit of effective practices to assist financial institutions before, during and after a cyber incident.
- Information-sharing on COVID-19-related threats. Some authorities are using existing domestic channels to exchange information on COVID-19-related cyber threats with financial institutions and other trusted counterparts. Organizations, such as the Bank of Italy and IVASS, are using these channels to disseminate security bulletins, organize webinars on attack techniques and possible countermeasures, and facilitate training on the correct use of company devices and the strengthening of controls connected to remote work. At the international level, the Euro Cyber Resilience Board for pan-European Financial Infrastructures and the Cyber Resilience Coordination Center of BIS are expected to play an important role in facilitating the exchange of information on COVID-19-related threats.
Furthermore, as a result of the crisis, many authorities are prioritizing other prudential areas and, therefore, postponing AML onsite inspections or relying only on off-site monitoring. Some are also delaying AML reporting and other AML regulatory requirements to alleviate the resource pressure on financial institutions. Moreover, a number of jurisdictions have seen an increase in cash withdrawals during the crisis. When the flow of cash goes into reverse as the situation stabilizes, this could provide cover for ML activities. Overall, the note concludes that, in the areas of both cyber and ML/TF risks, the guidance provided by the authorities worldwide underscores the trade-offs between expecting financial institutions to enhance or adjust their cyber resilience and AML frameworks and, on the other hand, avoiding imposing an excessive burden that could hinder financial institutions in delivering key financial services.
Related Link: FSI Brief
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, COVID-19, Cyber Risk, AML/CFT, Operational Risk, FSI
Leading economist; commercial real estate; performance forecasting, econometric infrastructure; data modeling; credit risk modeling; portfolio assessment; custom commercial real estate analysis; thought leader.
Previous ArticleESRB Presents Conceptual Model for Systemic Cyber Risk
PRA published a statement that explains when to expect further information on the PRA approach to transposing the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5), including its approach to revisions to the definition of capital for Pillar 2A.
EIOPA is consulting on the relevant ratios to be mandatorily disclosed by insurers and reinsurers falling within the scope of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive as well as on the methodologies to build these ratios.
SRB published the work program for 2021-2023, setting out a roadmap to further operationalize the Single Resolution Fund and to achieve robust resolvability of banks under its remit over the next three years.
ECB finalized guidance on the way it expects banks to prudently manage and transparently disclose climate and other environmental risks under the current prudential rules.
BCBS published a technical amendment to the capital treatment of securitizations of non-performing loans by banks.
BoE announced that the Data and Statistics Division is planning to move collection of statistical data to the BoE Electronic Data Submission (BEEDS) portal.
APRA published the updated reporting standards and guidance for the collection of Economic and Financial Statistics (EFS), following a consultation process. Also published was a response letter to the feedback received on the proposal for amending the EFS reporting standards and guidance.
EC is consulting on a draft delegated regulation to supplement the Taxonomy Regulation (2020/852) by establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under which an economic activity qualifies as environmentally sustainable.
The IFRS Foundation published material highlighting the ways in which existing requirements in IFRS standards require companies to consider climate-related matters when their effect is material to the financial statements.
FSB published a progress report on the implementation of reforms to major interest rate benchmarks, including the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) benchmark.