the institutions and industry that could contribute towards the prevention of financial crimes and terrorism financing. apart from standing guided by specific instruction and detailed direction from regulators, compliance officers are encouraged to introduced new or proactive measures, within the ambit of the law. similarly, the requirement now emphasises on measures that commensurate with risk. the application of the risk - based approach ( rba ) should have a meaningful application in action. misinformed rba could lead to unjust financial exclusion, economic cost to institutions, or 3 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches sanctions by the authority. the efforts by private sector are vital as they form a part of the country ’ s assessment towards compliance to international aml / cft standards. they are assessed under immediate outcome 4 on whether ris adequately apply aml / cft preventive measures commensurate with their risks, and report suspicious transactions. i wish to highlight that, based on mutual evaluation exercise conducted on 38 countries so far, majority of the private sector within these countries, including developed countries are still unable to demonstrate the characteristics of an effective system ; namely understanding risks, comprehensive internal control and compliance programme including application of customer due diligence on suspicious transactions reporting. i would like to echo the discussion during the plenary session yesterday that an effective antifinancial crime programme requires concerted efforts from every line in the institutions, be it the first, second or third line of defence. it also demands collaborative efforts by other functions within the institutions, including an updated it system and infrastructure, comprehensive and continuous staff training programmes, and good understanding of risks. most importantly, the oversight and support from senior management and board of directors of the institutions. before i conclude my speech, allow me to share with you some developments from the regulatory perspective that you can expect in the near future. as you may be well aware, our national ml / tf risk assessment ( nra ) is currently in progress and is expected to be concluded by year end. the results of the assessment will be accompanied with some guidance from regulators. this should be used as a basis in your institutional risk assessment to eventually align your operations on a risk - based approach. you can also expect introductions and amendments to aml / cft policies, in response to the nra as well as to new areas relating to cryptocurrencies and e - kyc. from the enforcement perspective, another notable change to expect in the next year is the publicising of

##a and u. s. sanctions area. collectively, these cases have focused attention on potential misuse of the financial system for financial crimes, strengthened compliance programs at banking organizations ( both in the u. s. and abroad ), and generated billions of dollars in fines paid to the u. s. treasury. our coordination efforts begin at an early stage in the supervisory process. for example, the federal reserve brings every instance of an anti - money laundering deficiency or violation to the attention of fincen so that fincen may consider assessing a penalty for violations of the bsa. we also notify ofac of any apparent, unreported sanctions violations discovered in the course of an examination, and direct the banking organization we supervise to provide information directly to ofac as required by regulation. in addition, we share information and coordinate with the department of justice, state law enforcement, the federal banking agencies, and state regulators, as appropriate, as part of our enforcement program. the enforcement process it has been our experience that the majority of institutions supervised by the federal reserve have well - administered and effective bsa and ofac compliance programs. nevertheless, there have been instances where concerns have been raised by our examiners. importantly, the federal reserve does not have authority from congress to conduct criminal investigations or to prosecute criminal cases. the decision to prosecute a financial institution for money laundering offenses and criminal violations of the bsa and u. s. sanctions laws is made by the department of justice. most of these problems are resolved promptly after they are brought to the attention of a bank ’ s management and directors. in some instances, problems are of more serious concern and use of the federal reserve ’ s enforcement authority is deemed appropriate. in these cases, an informal supervisory action may be taken, such as requiring an institution ’ s board of directors to adopt an appropriate resolution or executing a memorandum of understanding between an institution and a reserve bank. in the most serious cases, the federal reserve may take a formal enforcement action against an institution. these actions may include a written agreement, a cease and desist order, or a civil money penalty. congress has also given the federal reserve the authority to terminate the operations of certain entities operating in the u. s. upon the conviction of a money laundering offense by the department of justice, and to prohibit insiders who intentionally commit such offenses from participating in the banking industry. the type of enforcement action pursued by the federal reserve against an institution is directly related to the severity