sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Reserve Bank reiterates request banks don't impose blanket ban on money remittance providers, says it's working with stakeholders on guidance

Reserve Bank reiterates request banks don't impose blanket ban on money remittance providers, says it's working with stakeholders on guidance

The Reserve Bank has again asked banks not to impose a blanket ban on taking money remittance service providers and virtual asset service providers on as customers in the name of de-risking themselves from money laundering and terrorism financing risks.

In an industry update the Reserve Bank, which supervises banks, non-bank deposit takers and life insurers under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act (AML/CFT Act), asks for risk to be managed, not avoided. It notes remittances to Pacific economies can represent up to 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and says it's working with both domestic and international stakeholders to develop guidance.

"We believe that a blanket ban on money transfer operators and fintech businesses including virtual asset service providers goes against the purpose of the AML/CFT Act, as it erodes confidence in the financial system by delegitimising these businesses as well as impairing the detection and deterrence of money laundering/terrorist financing by forcing activity underground."

"The Reserve Bank is committed to working with banks and where appropriate with money transfer operators and virtual asset service providers, to address concerns and break down barriers to financial inclusion and innovation that are negatively impacting New Zealanders and particularly the Pacific Island communities," the Reserve Bank says.

"While it might seem like a strong risk appetite for banks to say that they don’t provide banking services to money transfer operators or virtual asset service providers, in many cases this doesn’t actually lead to good outcomes for all stakeholders, especially people who need those banking services."

"Based on observations seen in the industry, money transfer operators who have their accounts closed by a bank, do not tend to disappear. Instead, they find other avenues to operate their business, and continue to send funds. Those money transfer operators will open accounts at other banks, they will open accounts in business names that claim to be something they are not or they will start utilising personal accounts and the accounts of family members," the Reserve Bank says.

If a money transfer operator is forced to move ‘underground’, then their activity begins to look more unusual or suspicious. By being underground and trying to avoid detection, the nature of their payments get masked and can make transaction monitoring and sanctions screening more difficult."

"Reporting Entities [such as banks] are constantly playing catch up, identifying accounts operated by money transfer operators and going through a closure process, only for the activity to move to a different account until it is discovered. Evidence shows that this is a timely and costly process and the Reserve Bank believes this time could be better spent elsewhere," the Reserve Bank says.

In 2016, in what was seen as a precedent setting case, the High Court ruled that Kiwibank was allowed to close the accounts of remittance company customer E-Trans International Finance to reduce its exposure to money laundering risks. The ruling effectively endorsed Kiwibank’s right to choose who it does business with, and decide whether or not it wants to invest in the systems necessary to monitor its remittance clients in line with the AML/CFT Act.

The judgment came after the Reserve Bank had, in 2015, warned banks they must have good reason to deprive money remitters of access to financial services, adding blanket de-risking wasn't acceptable.

In its new industry update, the Reserve Bank refers to its 2015 statement, saying it remains true today.

"But there are concerns that there is a lack of awareness about these messages," the Reserve Bank says.

And it reiterates a paragraph from 2015: "Money remitters present varying degrees of risk. The Reserve Bank considers that banks’ obligations under the AML/CFT Act require measured risk management and do not justify blanket de-risking. With appropriate systems and controls in place, banks should be able to manage and mitigate the money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by many money remitters. If banks are de-risking to avoid rather than manage and mitigate those risks, then that would be inconsistent with the intended effect of the AML/CFT Act."

The Reserve Bank notes that remittances to Pacific economies can represent up to 40% of GDP. The Reserve Bank says it's working with both domestic and international stakeholders to develop guidance and work with remitters in the Pacific to help them be more compliant with regional legal obligations.

"This includes exploring potential policy, legislative and regulatory changes to facilitate reduction in de-risking, and providing coordination and subject matter expertise around digital identity verification and payment and settlement systems."

"There are three key messages for industry on this important issue – please speak to the Reserve Bank as early as possible if reviewing your risk appetite for these sectors. Challenge your ability to manage the risk rather than simply avoid it, and talk to us you see options where we could help influence the risk reward proposition you are facing," the Reserve Bank says.

*This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers early on Friday morning. See here for more details and how to subscribe.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


This is a way for mainstream banks to direct transfers away from other smaller providers back to themselves where they provide a more expensive service. The main stream banks aren't interested in a few hundred dollar transfers here and there and if you want them to to do transfer you'll pay through the nose. Smaller providers can agglomerate amounts before transferring. In the end they still have to use the banks. Unfortunately Banks have to be used for forex transfers but the world wide system is rigged in their favour so its unlikely transferring funds not using a bank is ever likely to happen.

Sounds right.
I haven't used 'Wise' recently, but it will be interesting to see if they still have a local clearing bank to facilitate transactions the next time I do.

Few years too late, most of them where de-risking in early 2015. Those accounts have long been closed.

The last thing that banks want is for people to be able to transfer their own funds cheaply, efficiently, transparently, and economically. On that note, one of the more promising crypto providers Ripple in cross-border remittances appears to be succeeding in their legal battle against the SEC.

Why do banks not also ban property purchasing by interests that use foreign capital that comes into NZ. Especially to Bank of China. There are large traunches of laundering going on in the NZ market and real estate agents are part of it.

Why? Because they don't want to. We know that there Chinese citizens are restricted in taking capital out of the country. So how does that explain what has happened in NZ, Australia, Canada, etc? It's a total sham. OTOH, NZ has relied on this capital and money laundering of course. What is officially know is just a fraction.