[ad_1]
Norway’s largest bank is suspected of violating the Money Laundering Act.
WAITING TIME: It can take a lot for the bank not to have sufficiently complied with the anti-money laundering law.
Håkon Mosvold Larsen
- Fabian Skalleberg Nilsen
- Henrik Røyne (VG)
Published:,
In February 2020, Finanstilsynet conducted a routine money laundering inspection of DNB’s operations in Norway.
The bank has received a preliminary report and a fine may soon be imposed.
– This does not apply to suspected money laundering. What they are warning about a fee is inadequate enforcement of the Money Laundering Act, after seeing what oversight we have, how we take risk assessments, and if we have good enough reports, says Thomas Midteide, DNB’s Executive Vice President of Communications.
Finanstilsynet is considering imposing a NOK 400 million infringement administrative fee on DNB.
This is approximately 7 percent of the maximum amount that Finanstilsynet can impose and 0.7 percent of DNB’s turnover.
Constant fight against criminals
DNB takes Finanstilsynet’s criticisms “very seriously”. Both before and after the February audit, the country’s largest bank claims it has contact with the Norwegian authorities.
– Finanstilsynet supervises all banks, so it regularly supervises several areas. It is about our work against money laundering, which is a very important part of running a bank, emphasizes Midteide.
Read DNB’s message here
FIGHT: DNB’s Thomas Midteide says the big bank is fighting those who use its systems to commit financial crimes.
Morten Uglum
The bank informs E24 that it has taken extensive measures and investments in recent years to reduce the risk of being abused by criminals.
– The fight against financial crime is very important to DNB. We are constantly working to improve, but so does the criminal. It’s a fight that is happening all the time, says the executive vice president.
It says it remains to be seen whether DNB will have to pay the 400 million fee.
– Now we will explain our opinion on the case, and it will probably be a few months before it is decided. The reason we’re doing it now is because we think it’s more orderly in terms of informing the market in advance, says Midteide.
