Archive for Risk Management

Payment Strategies Webinar – Setting the course for UK Payments and the 2nd Payment Services Direct

A webinar by Experian

Firms need social media policy for staff 

Saturday, May 21 2016 

AN INCREASING number of people are engaging on social media platforms and they are also used by companies to promote their businesses. People are connected and are engaging with others around the world in a way that has never been possible before. 

You Can Get A Template Social Media Policy HERE

However, the inappropriate use or abuse of social media has also led to several legal battles, in SA and around the world. There have been many arrests for cybercrimes and an increase in the number of employees dismissed for social media misconduct.

The most popular social media platforms for business in SA are Twitter, followed by Facebook and YouTube. Their use is fraught with possible pitfalls and hidden dangers, especially because the laws regulating acceptable behaviour on them are underdeveloped.

People access their platforms of choice on their smartphones at all hours of the day or night, and often without a thought for the consequences of what they post. This has resulted in many public relations debacles, significant brand damage and costly litigation.

While there are no specific laws in SA regulating social media, this does not mean that its use is unregulated. As with any social interaction, the laws of general application apply. All users should be mindful that what they post amounts to written publication that can make a popular but careless and potentially damaging comment impossible to recall.

Employers may face brand damage and possible loss of business, and be liable for content or comments posted on its business accounts. They may also be vicariously liable for posts by their employees on their personal social media pages.

To address the downsides of social media use and protect their business interests, employers should implement and enforce a social media policy that aligns with their social media strategies.

IN THE policy, employers should distinguish between employees' private social media use and use for business purposes. Clear parameters should be set on what is considered acceptable conduct.

The consequences for breaches of the policy should be highlighted to encourage compliance. The policy should also set parameters for time spent by employees on personal social media during working hours. When addressing personal use in the social media policy, a distinction should be made between private use outside working hours that does not affect the employer's reputation or the employment relationship, and private use, either during or after work, that has a negative effect on these or opens the employer to claims for vicarious liability.

Should an employer take disciplinary action against an employee for unsavoury conduct during private use of social media, the action or dismissal may be substantively unfair because misconduct committed outside the workplace only justifies disciplinary action if it affects the employer, the employment relationship or employee relations.

However, employers will be justified in disciplining, and even dismissing, employees who during or after normal working hours, make derogatory, defamatory or scathing remarks about employers on social media or use it to harass, victimise or discriminate against fellow employees.

As with any dismissal, one for social media misconduct must be substantively and procedurally fair.

But negative or potentially damaging posts made on social media by an employee about an employer will not always justify disciplinary action. For example, comments that amount to protected disclosures or conduct in furtherance or support of a protected strike are protected under South African law and any ensuing disciplinary action will, in all likelihood, be unfair.

Employees responsible for controlling their employers' social media accounts may be held to a higher standard than those who use social media privately. As the business accounts are generally branded, employers are entitled to rigorously monitor such accounts as any careless, derogatory, defamatory or embarrassing remarks will reflect directly on the employer and may result in brand damage and litigation.

IN DEVELOPING the policy, consideration should be given to protecting employees from cyber-bullying and cyber harassment. In terms of the Employment Equity Act, employers will be liable for acts of unfair discrimination (which includes harassment) committed by its employees, unless it can show that reasonable steps were taken to prevent contraventions of the act.

The policy should also clearly identify ownership of the social media sites used for business purposes. Employees have left companies with passwords for its sites and”locked” their former employers out by changing them.

Employees active on LinkedIn may make connections with key clients and customers. When they leave, possibly to work for a competitor, they will have client contact information and may use it to set up business in competition with their former employers. Employers have a remedy, but the damage may be costly and time-consuming to reverse.

Employers should be mindful of limiting their employees' privacy rights only to the extent permitted in law and to protect the business. Before accessing employees' social media accounts, employers should obtain written consent which must be given freely, voluntarily and without duress or the employer could breach the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act.

Davey is a partner specialising in employment dispute resolution at Bowman Gilfillan.

You Can Get A Template Social Media Policy HERE


Privacy Awareness Week day 4 – the importance of implementing a social media policy for your business

May 19 2016 

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn are increasingly utilised by businesses worldwide for the significant benefits they can provide. Use of social media by your business, employees and clients can also involve risks, which your business should be prepared for. In this article, we will discuss the importance of implementing a social media policy for your business. 

You can get a template Social Media Policy HERE

How is social media relevant to your business?

When used effectively, social media can be used to:

  • develop your brand;
  • promote goods and services;
  • engage with clients and strategic partners;
  • market competitions and promotions;
  • recruit staff;
  • share business news and information; and
  • increase your search engine visibility.

In fact, social media is now becoming so entrenched in our daily lives that, even if your business has no official social media presence, the online activities of your employees and clients can create a presence.

What are the risks of social media exposure in business?

Although you or your employees may believe you are posting content in a private environment, privacy should never be assumed on social media as reposting, retweeting, sharing and screenshotting gives all online material the potential to be viewed by third parties in a public forum.

Irresponsible use of social media can lead to:

  • the release of confidential business information;
  • cyber bullying against other employees or even clients;
  • business reputation damage; and
  • liability for other legal action, for example, for defamation or breach of copyright.

Privacy Principles should also be considered when dealing with social media, for example:

If your business collects personal information from customers for a competition via social media, generally that personal information must only be used by your business in relation to the competition or for another purpose that the individual has consented to.

If you direct market to individuals over social media (by tagging users in posts in cases where the user's personal information is available to see), you will have to allow individuals the option to opt out of further direct marketing.

Clearly, unrestricted social media usage can have serious consequences for your business, your employees and the relationships you have built with existing (and potential) clients and business partners. To mitigate these risks it is important for you to develop a comprehensive social media policy for your business.

How can a social media policy protect against the risks of negative social media usage?

A social media policy will provide your employees with clear guidelines as to acceptable and unacceptable uses of personal and business-related social media. The implementation of a well drafted social media policy will allow your business to utilise social media in a positive way, while simultaneously outlining remedies for social media related harm.

When preparing a social media policy, you should consider the following:

Ensure that the policy covers the use of all social media tools in a variety of situations. These should include the use of social media in an official capacity representing your business, and your employees' personal use of social media (where such use can be linked back to your business).

Clearly specify the standard of behaviour expected of your employees on social media without unduly restricting your employee's right to use social media. Your social media policy should be fair and balanced.

The policy will be more likely to be adopted and adhered to if you educate your employees about the policy and make sure that the policy is readily available to them. Provide social media training to clarify your expectations and give your employees the opportunity to raise any concerns they may have.

By Cooper Grace Ward – Charles SweeneyCarly Ashwood and James McKeon

You can get a template Social Media Policy HERE


Are new government anti-money laundering proposals a step too far?

Michael Roach, 12 May 2016

Last month the government unveiled its Action Plan for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance. Describing the proposals as the most significant change to the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance regime in over a decade, the government aims to send a clear message that the UK will not tolerate money laundering or the funding of terrorism through its institutions A number of the proposals appear to offend against accepted principles of justice.

The Action Plan comes as the UK’s commitment to combatting serious, global financial crime is high on the political agenda, following the release of the Panama papers and its hosting of the International Anti-Corruption Summit this week. However, a number of the proposals appear to offend against accepted principles of justice and therefore warrant careful examination.

The plan proposes a number of measures ranging from fundamental reforms to the Suspicious Activity Reports system to the creation of new regulatory powers and criminal offences. Arguably the three most contentious proposals the creation of unexplained wealth orders (UWOs); a new criminal illicit enrichment offence; and new powers to enable the forfeiture of money held in bank accounts raise serious concerns regarding basic legal principles and guarantees, such as the reversal of the burden of proof.

UWOs are a form of non-conviction based asset confiscation. When served on a person suspected of having wealth or assets that represent the proceeds of unlawful activity, they require the recipient to explain the origin of their assets.

The seizure of assets by the state is an extreme measure that should not be used unless absolutely necessary and the threshold must be correspondingly high. Yet the scope of UWOs – including the proposed threshold test and what constitutes a satisfactory explanation – remains unclear.

A number of the proposed measures are difficult to reconcile with fundamental principles of English law.

In contrast to the section 2 powers available to the Serious Fraud Office, under which it can compel the provision of documents or information, UWOs appear to be designed for use on suspects and do not seem to offer equivalent protections regarding the use to which any compelled information can be put.

Moreover, it is unclear what type of criminal activity would be captured by UWOs. Transparency International has discussed their use as an anti-corruption tool, but UWOs could theoretically be used against those suspected to have unexplained wealth derived from all types of criminal activity. Unless appropriate safeguards are put in place, there is a clear danger that UWOs will facilitate fishing expeditions into people’s private financial affairs.

The criminal offence of illicit enrichment is the government’s response to the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)’s requirement that states consider the introduction of a national offence. Illicit enrichment is defined in the UNCAC as a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income and some countries have already criminalised such conduct.

While the Action Plan alludes to the offence being capable of commission only by public officials, it does not make this explicit and so it may be that a wider application is being considered.

The offence would make it easier for prosecutors to recover potentially ill-gotten gains by removing the need to establish that any crime had occurred or that identified assets were gained through criminal activity. Prosecutors would simply be required to show that the defendant had assets that exceeded those possible based on the person’s legitimate source(s) of income, thereby overcoming existing prosecutorial hurdles.
The proposal effectively criminalises the inability to provide an explanation as to a sudden increase in personal income or wealth. This is an unwarranted extension of the criminal law, as well as an unjustified intrusion into the private property rights of individuals.

In reversing the burden of proof, both UWOs and the illicit enrichment offence as currently drafted run contrary to the presumption of innocence, the privilege against self-incrimination and legitimate expectations with regards to fairness and due process. Certain suspects could find themselves in a situation where they risk incriminating themselves by providing an explanation for their asset increase, or alternatively face forfeiture and/or a criminal conviction if they remain silent.

New powers to enable the forfeiture of money held in bank accounts would plug a gap in The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) which requires criminal cash held in bank accounts to be recovered via civil recovery powers a complex and resource-demanding process.

The government has therefore proposed new powers to enable the forfeiture of money held in bank accounts in cases where there is no criminal conviction against the account holder – because, for example, the account was opened under a false identity – and there is a suspicion that the funds are the proceeds of crime.

It also wants to explore whether, following an initial hearing at a Magistrates’ Court, this new power could be used administratively. Such administrative forfeitures would be authorised by a senior law enforcement officer where the value held is below a certain limit, such as £100,000, and the case is uncontested.

While the changes would enable law enforcement agencies to obtain the forfeiture of money held in bank accounts more quickly and effectively, the extent of intrusion is questionable because the pre-emptive forfeiture of assets would take place before the suspect has had an opportunity to explain potentially legitimate sources of wealth. Furthermore, given the draconian nature of these proposed powers, it is concerning that on the current proposals they will only be subject to judicial scrutiny by the Magistrates’ Court.

It may be that the tough-talking Action Plan is little more than a political reaction to recent events, at a time when the government wants to demonstrate its leadership in addressing global corruption and other serious crimes. Taken at face value, however, a number of the proposed measures are difficult to reconcile with fundamental principles of English law. The removal of the presumption of responsibility from the senior managers’ regime provides a recent example of the resistance with which attempts to reverse the burden of proof are often met. It will therefore be interesting to see whether these proposals are eventually adopted and, if they are, whether they are adopted as currently envisioned and to what extent they will face court challenges.

Michael Roach is a lawyer for WilmerHale’s UK Investigations & Criminal Litigation team

Compliance Consutlant can assist you with Financial Crime, Fraud and other crime prevention strategies. Call us on 0207 097 1434 or email


Kenya: Chase Bank Resumes RTGs, Cheques Clearance, Trade Finance and Forex Operations –

Chase Bank Limited (In Receivership) has successfully resumed operations of key banking services such as Real Time Gross Settlements (RTGS), Electronic Funds Transfers (EFT), Agency Banking, Trade Finance, Foreign Exchange transactions and cheque clearance facility. 

This effectively gives customers access to all transactions, barely a fortnight after the Bank reopened. According to release issued May 13, 2016, a number of operations within the Bank have since normalized, particularly with gradual increase in deposits and account opening transactions occurring across the Chase Bank (IR) network.

The restoration of these services, with the support of KCB Bank Limited, who is the Receiver Manager appointed by Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC), marks yet another important milestone for Chase Bank (IR) as it embarks on a phased implementation plan to normalize its operations.

Paul Russo the Receiver Manager affirmed that Chase Bank (IR) remained committed to getting back to full operations in the near future, offering customers and stakeholders a major reprieve.

“Over the last two weeks, we have reached crucial milestones towards getting Chase back to full flight. We have seen massive support from our customers who have stood with us and we are keen at remaining firmly focused on our customer service objectives and we remain committed to the core values of enabling our customers, both individuals and businesses, to grow and prosper so that we live up to our promise as the'Relationship Bank” said Mr. Russo.

A vote of confidence by Chase Bank's (IR) customers saw the bank successfully resume operations on the 27th April 2016, after the CBK placed the bank under Receivership. The Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC), in turn appointed KCB Bank Kenya Limited as the receiver manager.

“The return of Chase Bank (IR) back to normal operation is a confidence story for Kenya's banking sector. We will continually engage all stakeholders to ensure we rebuild Chase together,” said Joshua Oigara, KCB Group CEO.

A number of operations within the Bank have since normalized, particularly with gradual increase in deposits and account opening transactions occurring across the Chase Bank (IR) network.

The activation of Chase Bank's (IR) agency network and trade finance services, such as bid bonds and cash backed guarantees, has played a significant role in providing clients with channels to carry out various transactions, said Mr Russo.

Chase Bank's (IR) robust agency network of 1,073 CBK approved agents is hugely popular with the bank's SME clients and is part of an efficient and effective array of alternative banking services. 

KDIC Acting Chief Executive Officer, Mohamud A Mohamud while thanking depositors and other stakeholders said:”In conjunction with KCB, we are committed to supporting Chase Bank (IR) for the benefit of all stakeholders, including depositors, creditors and members of the public, and ensure it resumes normal operations.”

Compliance Consultant can assist you in all your banking compliance needs.


Government to accelerate introduction of new corporate offence for failure to prevent tax evasion

Posted by Aaron Stephens, Kate Ison, Rebecca Wardle on 11/04/2016

Summary: Following the release of the “Panama Papers” and the pressure on the UK government to take steps to tackle tax evasion, David Cameron has announced plans to push through the introduction of this new offence. Although it is not yet clear when the new offence will come into effect, corporates and financial institutions should now take steps to ensure that they have robust policies and procedures in place to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.


We have previously commented about the UK Government’s proposals in relation to a new criminal offence for corporates who fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion and the initial consultation “Tackling Offshore Tax Evasion: a new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion” which was first published in July 2015.


The new offence

Corporations will be criminally liable where a person representing the corporation during the course of business criminally facilitates the evasion of tax by others.  The offence will apply to the evasion of all UK taxes and all equivalent overseas rules about the offence of taxes, and those corporations found guilty of this offence will be subject to a fine.

The draft legislation published last year is based on the corporate offence contained in section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010. This provides that a commercial organisation is guilty of an offence if it fails to prevent a person associated with it from engaging in bribery intending to benefit the commercial organisation (subject to an “adequate procedures” defence). In order to be found guilty under section 7 of the Bribery Act, it is not necessary to prove that the organisation itself had any criminal knowledge or intent.

There is no requirement under the proposed tax offence that the representative must have been acting for the benefit of the organisation. The effect of this is to potentially lower the threshold for liability and broaden the scope of the new offence: corporations and other organisations will be liable where the representative is providing services for or on their behalf (even if not directly for their benefit).

A “representative” includes natural and legal persons acting on behalf of a corporation – for example an employee of a bank dealing directly with a customer, a subsidiary of a corporation or a third party organisation providing services to a customer as part of a package provided by a bank.


Practical Impact

The offence is subject to the defence that the corporation had put in place reasonable procedures to prevent its representatives from criminally facilitating tax evasion. As with the Bribery Act defence of “adequate procedures”, the key issue is what will constitute “reasonable procedures” for these purposes. The draft legislation requires guidance on the meaning of “reasonable procedures” to be published, and this was to be released in early 2016. As yet, no such draft guidance has been released, however it is expected that this should follow shortly given the acceleration of the introduction of the new offence.

Although the Government stated in its response to the original consultation that it was “mindful of the need not to overburden corporations”, the confirmation that the legislation will be introduced this year means that there will be a very limited period for companies to ensure that they have these “reasonable procedures” in place.  Whilst it has been indicated that whether the procedures are reasonable will depend on the specific context, without further guidance it will be difficult for companies to fully satisfy themselves that they are not at risk.

The Government appears to envisage that the new legislation will not require corporations to carry out additional checks on their clients.  However, it is clear from the responses to the consultation last year that many organisations do not already have sufficient controls in place to monitor whether staff have deliberately facilitated tax fraud, and to prevent staff from doing so.  Concerns were raised in relation to the burden that this new offence would place on corporates, particularly financial institutions, and the work that will be required in order to ensure that procedures and policies are up to scratch.  The Government’s December 2015 response indicated that a formal policy will be necessary. Accordingly, organisations will need to ensure that they have appropriate policies, procedures and guidance in place before the enactment of the legislation this year. This could impose a significant and time-sensitive burden on corporations.


Status of the proposed legislation

In December 2015, the Government confirmed that it intended to proceed with this measure by publishing draft legislation which sets out the detail of the new offence, together with the summary of responses to its initial consultation.  It was intended that the Government would consult on the draft legislation, and although the consultation was expected to open in early 2016 there have, until this week, been no further announcements in relation to the proposals.

It was announced today that the legislation will now be introduced this year. It is unclear though when exactly the new offence will come into force and how much time there will be for corporates and financial institutions to prepare for it. It is possible that even though the relevant legislation will be introduced this year, the new offence may not itself come into force until 2017: the Government has adopted this approach in relation to the introduction of three new criminal offences seeking to tackle tax evasion and avoidance which are provided for in Finance Bill 2016. However, we await further details on the timing of the proposed new offence for corporates. Whether there will be an opportunity for taxpayers to be consulted on any draft guidance now appears unlikely given the expedited timeframe.


New cross government taskforce

The government has also launched a new “taskforce” to investigate and respond to the practices identified in the “Panama Papers”.  The combined involvement and expertise of HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Conduct Authority indicates that there will be a strong emphasis on investigating corporates and the internal policies, practices and controls that they have in place in relation to all aspects of financial compliance, not solely taxation.


Need to test your controls and processes? Contact us on 0207 097 1434


WP LinkedIn Auto Publish Powered By :