ASPECTS OF ASIA
二、“風險為本”的必要性
The necessity of the “risk-based” principle
客觀的說，由於不同國家/地區的經濟結構各有特點，反洗
錢監管規則、反洗錢管控意識和管控水準、階段性打擊力度等也
往往存在差異，洗錢者總是努力給黑錢找“出路”，這些黑錢就可
能會從管理較嚴的機構/地區向管控較弱的機構/地區轉移，從
管理完善的業務領域向管理尚不成熟的業務轉移， 即“短板效應”
。例如，早前一段時間歐洲部份國家先行加強了現金存款業務的
審查與管理，洗錢者們便駕車把鉅額現金運至管控較松的國家。
再如，第三方支付蓬勃發展，加速了資金匯劃，使資金鏈條複雜
化，而反洗錢監管未及時到位，客戶及交易信息傳遞不足，銀行
就需要更多地關注此類交易的洗錢風險。
可見，與“規則為本”被動地執行監管規則與標準相比，“風險
為本”是需要銀行主動識別、發現黑錢的各種“出路”與變化，進而
找出方法去防控。
三、“風險為本”之關鍵
Objectively speaking, as different countries/regions have unique
economic structures, more often than not there are variations in
AML regulatory requirements, AML control awareness and capabil-
ities, as well as the amount of AML efforts. Money launderers are
always painstakingly scrambling to find new “outlets” for black
money, and such black money may be transferred from institutions/
regions with more stringent management to those with weaker
management or from business areas with sound management to
those with immature management (“buckets effect”). For example,
after some European countries a while ago took the initiative in
tightening their audit and management on cash deposit operations,
money launderers drove their truckloads of money to other coun-
tries with relatively lax controls. Furthermore, the booming devel-
opment of third-party payment expedites capital transfer and
remittance, complicating the flow of funds. On the other hand,
banks need to pay more attention to money laundering risks associ-
ated with these kinds of transactions owing to AML regulatory con-
trols that fail to keep up and insufficient communication in customer
and transaction information.
It is evident that the “risk-based” AML approach requires banks to
proactively identify and seek out various “outlets” and changes of
black money in order to find ways to control money laundering,
whereas the “regulation-based” approach only requires passive
enforcement of regulatory requirements and standards.
The key to the “risk-based” principle
銀行業要落實“風險為本”原則，必須將反洗錢管理的重心由
事後分析判斷向事中主動管理轉移，就需要將風控理念、機制、
要求與銀行業務拓展經營有機結合；建立起嚴格的反洗錢合規原
則，運行全流程、統一的風險管理機制，進而在集團範圍樹立良
好的合規管理文化。
To implement the “risk-based” principle, the banking industry
needs to shift the focus of AML management from post-analysis
and judgment to proactive management. With this in mind, banks
must organically integrate risk control ideas, mechanisms, require-
ments and banks’ business development and management. Banks
need to build up stringent AML compliance principles and enforce
whole processes and unified risk management mechanisms, in
order to establish a sound and compliant management culture
within the institutions.
Customer due diligence is the basis of AML management
（一）客戶盡職調查是管理基礎
起初，銀行尤其是全功能銀行對普通客戶的資訊收集相對簡
單，對有業務服務（比如授信、理財等）的客戶資訊收集相對豐
富，但此類客戶占比並不高，所以應當承認銀行並不瞭解大部份
客戶。因此，許多銀行因反洗錢違規被監管施以鉅額處罰後，評
估比較了盡職調查成本和經營收益，主動選擇退出低值客戶、低
盈利區域，把精力集中於維護高值客戶。同時，銀行業務人員即
使在業務過程中收集到客戶、業務信息，但受到個人風險管理意
識和技能所限，無法充分運用於管理。加之系統功能不支持等，
均限制了銀行清晰記錄展示、準確分析評估客戶洗錢風險。
Previously, banks—particularly full-service banks—took things
lightly when it came to collecting information about their ordinary
customers. They tended to collect information about customers of
business services (such as credit granting and money management,
etc.) but these customers only accounted for a small fraction of their
clients. So, it is fair to conclude that banks did not know the major-
ity of their customers. Therefore, many banks were penalized by
regulators for the violation of AML regulations. In response, they
proactively decided to divert their focus from low-value clients and
regions with low profitability to high-value clients, after weighing
customer due diligence (CDD) costs against operating income. In
the meantime, even if banking staff managed to collect information
on customers and their transactions, they were still unable to apply
them to AML management due to the lack of risk management
awareness and expertise. In addition, the unavailability of support
ACAMS TODAY | SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2017 | ACAMS.ORG | ACAMSTODAY.ORG
83