<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<!-- Generated by HotBanana --><title>Effective AML Compliance</title><link>http://www.theiia.org/intAuditor/feature-articles/2012/august/effective-aml-compliance/</link>
<description>Blog</description><language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:44:19 AM</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:44:19 AM</lastBuildDate>
<item><link>http://www.theiia.org/intAuditor/feature-articles/2012/august/effective-aml-compliance/</link><pubDate>2012-09-06</pubDate><title>Preempting Regulatory Findings</title><description>Our experience in gaming has been that irrespective of how hard one works to preempt regulatory findings both from the Compliance Staff and Internal Audit perspectives, they will &quot;create&quot; regulatory findings.  IN one instance, a finding was generated despite a specific exclusion in the law based on a weak argument.  However, I&apos;ve come not to expect the Federal Government to play by the same rules as industry. </description></item>
<item><link>http://www.theiia.org/intAuditor/feature-articles/2012/august/effective-aml-compliance/</link><pubDate>2012-08-10</pubDate><title>Frequency of independent review</title><description>Please clarify the statement about the annual review requirement. It seems that the only explicit frequency requirement is from FINRA for brokers/dealers.  
According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council BSA/AML InfoBase, there is no  specifically frequency defined in any other statute, though the best practice is 12 to 18 month.
 
http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/olm_007.htm. 

 </description></item>
</channel>
</rss>

