Press Releases issued by the Academy, by members and partners in 2008-2009 appear below.
Press Releases generally approved for release on the association websites include:
If you have a press-release you would like displayed on the member's website, please submit to email@example.com.
June 21, 2018
This is a question that took on greater meaning in the past week. Most of the banking fraternity is aware the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) had charged that Australia’s largest company, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), with breaching the Transaction guidelines. Typically one or two breaches could be overlooked but in this case it was more than one or two. In fact it was more than 53,000 individual events where amounts of between $5000 and $9000 were able to slip through the CBA system. Blame was placed on a new deposit ATM that failed to properly record transactions and, as a consequence, money launderers were able to launder and transfer huge amounts overseas. Even using a conservative estimate of $5000 per transaction the amount that could have been involved would be in the vicinity of A$300,000,000 (US$230,000,000).
With the staggering illustration of incompetence by CBA senior management including directors, risk management, internal audit and a host of others one would have expected AUSTRAC to throw the book at CBA. In fact they came out swinging and seemingly were going to take CBA to task. The maximum fine that could be levied could have been over $1 trillion and would have destroyed the bank. However, on June 3rd CBA agreed to accept a fine of $700 million to make the issue go away. Although this is the largest fine ever levied against an Australian bank many would argue that the fine is totally inadequate. It is the equivalent to only7% of CBA’s operating profit for the current year. Some critics of AUSTRAC’S fine believe that an amount equivalent to 50% of the current year’s profit would be a better figure if they want to get serious about money laundering. Meanwhile most of the miscreants from the CBA are still there and prospering while the shareholders have a diminution in the value of shareholder’s funds of $700 million.
At the same time one must have sympathy for the shareholders of companies that accept fines rather than go to court and risk executives going to jail, which is an option in the US. A few years ago HSBC directors agreed to accept a US$1.9 billion fine from the US for breaching anti-money laundering regulations. The decision was not hard. Pay a fine with someone else’s money, namely HSBC shareholder’s, or risk going to jail. So the shareholder doesn’t only have to foot the bill for the incompetence of their executives it is highly likely that they will remain at the bank and continue to be rewarded.
January 10, 2018
The International Academy of Business and Financial Management (IABFM) has been operating for close on 15 years internationally and for 7 years in Africa. One of the key drivers of the IABFM success has been, in addition to the quality of its faculty, the quality of the content of its programs. This quality has been strictly regulated through a number of processes. These processes include:
· Having programs developed by seasoned trainers who are specialists in their fields with many years experience in their subject area
· Having qualified trainers who hold doctorates and masters degrees
· Developing cutting edge programs, some with supporting software platforms, which coach delegates in the latest and future required techniques by providing them with the right tools to achieve them
· Having the subjects reviewed by subject matters experts (SMEs) consisting of specialist trainers, industry experts and academics who sign off that the content of programs meets their demanding requirements for certification.
· Leading to an external review by a number of independent bodies, such as CPD (UK), that attest to the quality and content of the IABFM programs.
It is only after this extremely rigorous assessment process that an IABFM program can be referred to as “Certified”.
In the past few weeks we have observed one organisation selling training programs in Africa that is branding them as being “certified” by a particular US “global body”. However, this same “certifying body” sells exactly the same certificates over the Internet for a payment of $300. International banks are being fined billions of dollars for non-compliance, particularly in relation to money laundering. Is it possible that your compliance officer’s sole claim to compliance expertise is based entirely on their “ability” to make a payment of $300 over the Internet? In risk management terms if the certification cannot be relied on then it represents a major risk to your organization that may, have disastrous implications for the organisation and the senior management.
These “certificate” mills have existed for many years in the US and it is unfortunate to now see them emerging in the African markets as it raises questions about whether the company’s promoting this type of “certification” bothered to undertake any due diligence of its providers.
The IABFM markets its programs through its African branches in Johannesburg and Nairobi and warrants that its pursuit of excellence in certified training will not be compromised EVER.
|Join our groups on and|