| S.No. |
ENTITY |
DIRECTORS/ PERSONS |
REGULATORY CHARGES |
REGULATORY ACTION(S) / DATE OF ORDER |
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS |
| 41 |
|
NAINITAL BANK LTD.,THE
|
|
|
DID NOT UPDATE KNOW YOUR CLIENTS (KYC) AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING (AML) POLICY
DID NOT FURNISH COMPLETE RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM FIU-IND
DID NOT MATCH NAMES AND PROFILES OF CUSTOMERS WITH REQUISITE SANCTIONS LISTS AT THE TIME OF ONBOARDING
DID NOT CONSIDER ALL PARAMETERS OF RISK ASSESSMENT AND TO CARRY OUT UPDATION OF RISK CATEGORY ON TRANSACTIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL BASIS
DID NOT FOLLOW REQUISITE PROCESS OF DETERMINATION OF ULTIMATE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
DID NOT FORMULATE AND IMPLEMENT ENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE MEASURES TO VERIFY THE CLIENTS IDENTITY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TYPE OF CLIENT, BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, NATURE AND VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS BASED ON THE OVERALL MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING RISKS INVOLVED
DID NOT IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE TRANSACTION MONITORING AND REPORTING SYSTEM TO ALERT GENERATION, UCIC ALLOTMENT AND AUTHENTICATION OF KYC DOCUMENTS
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.25,000
WARNED/DIRECTED TO PAY DUE RS.25,000
30-MAR-2022
|
|
| 42 |
|
|
NOIDA COMMERCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE AND BEING GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN CONDUCT OF PROFESSIONAL DUTIES AS PER SECTION 132 (4) OF THE COMPANIES ACTREAD WITH SECTION 22 OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1949 (NO 38 OF 1949)AND CLAUSE 7 OF PART I OF SECOND SCHEDULE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ACT, 1949 IN MATTER OF PRABHU STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.
DID NOT INVITE ATTENTION TO ANY MATERIAL DEPARTURE FROM GENERALLY ACCEPTED PROCEDURE OF AUDIT APPLICABLE TO CIRCUMSTANCES VIOLATING SECTION 22 OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1949(NO 38 OF 1949) READ WITH CLAUSE 9 OF PART I OF SECOND SCHEDULE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ACT, 1949 IN MATTER OF PRABHU STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.
DID NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS VIOLATING RULE 5(2) AND 7(3) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.25,70,000
09-JAN-2020
|
|
| 43 |
|
|
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
|
|
|
DID NOT EVOLVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO REPORT INTEGRALLY CONNECTED TRANSACTIONS
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.1,00,000
27-MAY-2015
|
NOT APPEARING IN THE LIST DATED 30-JUN-2018
|
| 44 |
|
|
PAYPAL PAYMENTS PVT.LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT GET REGISTERED AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS TO MAINTAIN AND REPORT VARIOUS RECORDS VIOLATING SECTIONS 12(1) (A) AND (B) OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT,2002 READ WITH RULES 3 AND 8 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT APPOINT DESIGNATED DIRECTOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE OF 7(1) PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.96,00,000
17-DEC-2020
|
|
| 45 |
|
|
PRIME CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT EVOLVE AND IMPLEMENT INTERNAL MECHANISM TO REPORT SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS VIOLATING SECTION 12 OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 3, 5, 7 AND 8 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT FILR CTRS AND NTRS WITHIN TIMELINE VIOLATING SECTION 12 OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 3, 5, 7 AND 8 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT SUBMIT CORRECT DATA TO FIU-IND
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.3,90,000
17-JUL-2019
|
|
| 46 |
|
|
PUNJAB & SIND BANK
|
|
|
DID NOT FILE CERTAIN THRESHOLD BASED REPORTS ACCURATELY AND/OR WITHIN TIMELINE VIOLATING SECTIONS 12 AND 12A OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 3,4,5,7 AND 8 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO FILE THRESHOLD BASED REPORTS ETC VIOLATING SECTION SECTIONS 12 AND 12A OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 3,4,5,7 AND 8 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.2,87,80,000
31-JUL-2019
|
|
| 47 |
|
|
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
|
|
|
DID NOT FILE CERTAIN THRESHOLD BASED REPORTS VIOLATING SECTIONS 12 AND 12A OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 3 AND 7 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO FILE THRESHOLD BASED REPORTS ACCURATELY AND/OR WITHIN TIMELINE VIOLATING SECTION SECTIONS 12 AND 12A OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 3 AND 7 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO FILE THRESHOLD BASED REPORTS AND SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS REPORTS TIMELY AND ACCURATELY VIOLATING SECTION SECTIONS 12 AND 12A OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 3 AND 7 OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT SUBMIT CORRECT DATA TO FIU-IND
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.15,62,90,000
29-JUL-2019
|
|
| 48 |
|
|
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
|
|
|
DID NOT EVOLVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO REPORT INTEGRALLY CONNECTED TRANSACTIONS
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.3,00,000
01-OCT-2015
|
NOT APPEARING IN THE LIST DATED 30-JUN-2018
|
| 49 |
|
|
SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK
|
|
|
DID NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT ALL CASH TRANSACTIONS WHERE FORGED OR COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY NOTES OR BANK NOTES WERE USED AS GENUINE VIOLATING SECTIONS 12(1) (A) AND (B) READ WITH RULES 3(1) (C), 7(2), 7(3) AND 8(1) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT FILE FICN/CCRS UNDER RULE 3(1) (C) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.9,00,000
14-OCT-2020
|
|
| 50 |
|
|
SHIVAJIRAO BHOSALE SAHAKARI BANK LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT REPORT CASH TRANSACTIONS AND/OR DELAY IN REPORTING CASH TRANSACTIONS REPORT
DID NOT EVOLVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.4,50,000
31-OCT-2022
|
|
| 51 |
|
|
SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT EVOLVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS
DID NOT UNDERTAKE RISK CATEGORIZATION OF CUSTOMERS TO CONDUCT PERIODICAL REVIEW VIOLATING PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT IDENTIFY AND VERIFY BENEFICIAL OWNER VIOLATING PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.4,50,000
04-DEC-2020
|
|
| 52 |
|
|
SOLAPUR SOCIAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,THE
|
|
|
DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN CONDUCT OF PROFESSIONAL DUTIES VIOLATING SECTION 22 (NO 38 OF 1949) READ WITH CLAUSE 7 OF PART I OF SECOND SCHEDULE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ACT, 1949 IN MATTER OF OF IL&FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.
DID NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS VIOLATING RULE 5(2) AND 7(3) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.5,50,000
15-APR-2019
|
|
| 53 |
|
|
STAR UNION DAI-ICHI LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT FURNISH ALL REPORTABLE TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING INTEGRALLY CONNECTED TRANSANCTIONS
DELAY IN REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.1,00,000
02-JUL-2014
|
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 09/07/2015 DISMISSED THE APPEAL. NO COSTS
|
| 54 |
|
|
STATE BANK OF INDIA
|
|
|
DID NOT EVOLVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO REPORT INTEGRALLY CONNECTED TRANSACTIONS
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.5,00,000
27-OCT-2015
|
NOT APPEARING IN THE LIST DATED 30-JUN-2018
|
| 55 |
|
|
STERLING URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT FILE COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY REPORT (CCRS)
DID NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT ALL CASH TRANSACTIONS WHERE FORGED OR COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY NOTES OR BANK NOTES WERE USED AS GENUINE VIOLATING SECTIONS 12(1) (A) AND (B) READ WITH RULES 3(1) (C), 7(2), 7(3) AND 8(1) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.50,000
DIRECTED TO ENSURE SUITABLE TRAINING IN AML/CFT FOR THE CONCERNED STAFF RS.50,000
14-SEP-2023
|
|
| 56 |
|
|
SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT EVOLVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS
DID NOT FULLY IMPLEMENT CLIENT DUE DILIGENCE PROGRAMME SPECIFICALLY REGARD TO SCREENING NAMES OF PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS/BORROWERS IN THE LATEST UNSC SANCTIONS LIST AND SUCH OTHER LISTS VIOLATING PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT VERIFY IDENTIFY OF ITS CLIENTS SPECIFICALLY BY NON-VERIFICATION OF KYC DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINALS VIOLATING PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.3,00,000
27-OCT-2020
|
|
| 57 |
|
|
TUMKUR GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
|
|
|
DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE AND BEING GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN CONDUCT OF PROFESSIONAL DUTIES AS PER SECTION 132 (4) OF THE COMPANIES ACTREAD WITH SECTION 22 OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1949 (NO 38 OF 1949)AND CLAUSE 7 OF PART I OF SECOND SCHEDULE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ACT, 1949 IN MATTER OF PRABHU STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.
DID NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS VIOLATING RULE 5(2) AND 7(3) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.4,50,000
09-JAN-2020
|
|
| 58 |
|
|
UNION BANK OF INDIA
|
|
|
DID NOT REPORT SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNT AND SEVERAL ALERTED TRANSACTIONS
DID NOT CARRY OUT ONGOING DUE DILIGENCE AND TO EXAMINE TRANSACTIONS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF CLIENT, BUSINESS, RISK PROFILE AND SOURCE OF FUNDS
DID NOT REVIEW DUE DILIGENCE MEASURES INCLUDING VERIFYING AGAIN IDENTIFY OF THE CLIENTS AND OBTAINING INFORMATION ON PURPOSE AND INTENDED NATURE OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
DID NOT CONDUCT CLIENT DUE DILIGENCE OF EXISTING CLIENTS BASED ON MATERIALITY AND RISK
DID NOT EVOLVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.54,00,000
DIRECTED TO UNDERTAKE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS DUE DILIGENCE PROCEDURES RS.54,00,000
DIRECTED TO REASSESS ITS INTERNAL MECHANISM AND TRANSACTION MONITORING APPROACH RS.54,00,000
01-OCT-2024
|
|
| 59 |
|
|
URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,THE,SHIKARIPUR
|
|
|
DID NOT MAKE DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCES THE COMPANY MADE AS PER SECTION 132 (4) OF THE COMPANIES ACT READ WITH SECTION 22 OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1949 (NO 38 OF 1949) AND CLAUSE 5 OF PART 1 OF THE SECOND SCHEDULE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1949IN MATTER OF PRABHU STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.
DID NOT REPORT MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS KNOWN TO HIM IN TO APPEAR IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PER SECTION 132 (4) OF THE COMPANIES ACTREAD WITH SECTION 22 OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1949 (NO 38 OF 1949)AND CLAUSE 6 OF PART I OF THE SECOND SCHEDULE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ACT, 1949 IN MATTER OF PRABHU STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.
DID NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORTING OF CASH TRANSACTIONS ABOVE RS.10.00 LACS VIOLATING SECTIONS 12(1) (A) AND 12(1) (B) OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULES 5(2) AND 7(3) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.6,20,000
15-JUL-2019
|
|
| 60 |
|
|
VIRAJPETH PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA
|
|
|
DELAY IN FILING OF CASH TRANSACTION REPORTS (CTRS) VIOLATING RULES 3(1)(A), 3(1)(B), 5(2), 7(2), 7(3) AND 7(4) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT FILE CASH TRANSACTION REPORTS (CTRS) VIOLATING RULES 3(1)(A), 3(1)(B), 5(2), 7(2), 7(3) AND 7(4) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
DID NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE INTERNAL MECHANISM TO DETECT AND REPORT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS VIOLATING RULES 3(1)(A), 3(1)(B), 5(2), 7(2), 7(3) AND 7(4) OF PML (MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS) RULES, 2005
|
IMPOSED FINE RS.6,45,000
03-MAR-2021
|
|
| The regulatory charges/regulatory actions may be fully or partly applicable to the entities/persons mentioned in the second column. |
| |
|
|
| Page 3 of 4
|
