The bank is a Nigerian multinational financial services institution offering a range of banking services across Africa and the UK and is listed on both the London and Nigerian stock exchanges.
The City watchdog said GT Bank failed to undertake adequate customer risk measures, often not assessing or documenting the money laundering risks posed by its customers. The bank also failed to monitor customer transactions and business relationships to the required standard.
These weaknesses were repeatedly highlighted to GT Bank by internal and external sources, including the FCA, but GT Bank failed to take appropriate action to fix them, it said.
From early 2018, GT Bank stopped taking on new customers and later the same year agreed to wider voluntary restrictions on business, given the FCA’s ongoing concerns. Requirements remained in place until the middle of 2021 when they were lifted after the bank completed a remediation plan, checked by an independent third party, or skilled person.
The regulator called the banks’ conduct ‘particularly egregious’ following enforcement action in August 2013 also relating to its AML controls which brought a fine £525,000, again, for serious and systemic failings.
‘Guaranty Trust should have acted quicker’
Mark Steward, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: “GT Bank should have acted quickly to put in place adequate AML controls following its fine in 2013 but it failed to do so. GT Bank did not develop a plan that was capable of addressing its AML weaknesses, exposing it and the broader market to financial crime risks for a prolonged period.”
“Firms must protect themselves and those dealing with them from financial crime risks, especially money laundering. The FCA is determined to ensure the market for financial services is safe, clean and trusted with robust systems and controls in place to stymie financial crime. The FCA will continue to take action when these standards are not met.”
GT Bank has not disputed the FCA’s findings and agreed to settle, which means it has qualified for a 30 per cent discount. Without this discount, the financial penalty would have been £10,959,700.
