Comment re. Estonia

The Danish FSA's comment on the communication from the Estonian Financial Supervisory Authority (EFSA) on the anti money laundering (AML) supervision of Danske Bank in Estonia.

Contact

Director, Communications

Søren Møller Christensen
+45 33 55 82 99
smc@ftnet.dk

Translation from original text in Danish. In case of discrepancies, the Danish version prevails.

 

In its statement of 29 January 2019 on the supervision of Danske Bank, the Danish FSA described the division of responsibilities between the host country (Estonia) and home country (Denmark) in relation to AML supervision of Danske Bank’s Estonian branch. In its announcement today, the EFSA expresses surprise at this description.

However, this division of responsibilities was also described in the joint statement issued by the Danish FSA and the EFSA on May 28, 2018 and confirmed by the Legal Adviser to the Danish Government in connection with the Danish FSA's statement of 29 January 2019 on the supervision of Danske Bank.

The described division of responsibilities has also been followed in practice. As described in the report, the EFSA performed AML inspections in Danske Bank in Estonia in 2007, 2009 and 2014. In 2013, the EFSA requested from the branch material on the Russian customers in the branch which had been mentioned in a warning from the Russian central bank. The EFSA found no significant breaches of internal procedures or legal requirements, and generally found that the branch’s AML procedures were in accordance with statutory requirements. Although the EFSA remained concerned, the EFSA notified the Danish FSA that EFSA did not see a need for immediate regulatory action.

The EFSA had the power to stop the offenses when the EFSA became aware of them through inspections in 2014. The EFSA did not depend on possible actions from the home country supervision (the Danish FSA).

The EFSA has been part of the college of supervisors for Danske Bank since this was established, and the EFSA did not in this context express disagreement regarding supervisory model or division of responsibilities with respect to supervision of either governance or AML.

As stated in the report from the Danish FSA, the AML supervision of Danske Bank's other foreign branches and subsidiaries has also been carried out by the host countries’ supervisory authorities. Therefore, the Danish FSA does not understand the EFSA’s view that responsibilities are supposedly different in other countries. 

The Danish FSA will contact the EFSA in order to obtain a greater understanding of the EFSA's position.