On 9 April this year, the public prosecutor's office (OM) revealed via a press release know that it has decided to sue Rabobank for breaching the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing and Terrorism Act (Wwft). The bank allegedly failed to conduct customer due diligence and report unusual transactions. For the same reasons, the prosecution had earlier summoned the ING bank and the ABN Amro bank prosecuted, which led to mega-settlements requiring the banks to pay hundreds of millions to the prosecution.

Money laundering

In the fight against money laundering, banks are being cracked down on by the prosecution. If they neglect their role as gatekeepers, criminally earned money can be too easily mixed with 'clean' money in the financial system.

Role of gatekeeper

Banks are required by law to prevent abuse of the financial system. Because they can give (legal) persons access to the financial system, they are also referred to as 'gatekeepers'. They can be the first to pick up signals of money laundering and take the necessary action. In any case, the bank should conduct a thorough customer due diligence and assess whether transactions fit the corresponding (risk) profile. If this is not the case, there may be unusual transactions that should be reported to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

Customer due diligence and unusual transactions

Among other things, the Wwft requires the bank to reasonable measures make arrangements to keep the data collected on the customer survey up to date.

This means that the bank will have to periodically investigate who the actual account holder is and whether the use of the account fits the profile previously made of the customer. For example, if thousands of PIN payments are made over a lingerie owner's account at night, this does not fit the customer's profile. This was the case in the Cymbal case where a total of 320 million was allegedly laundered. Clients involved in, for example, importing precious metals, ivory or archaeological artefacts from exotic (high-risk) countries can count on heightened scrutiny from the outset.

  Enforcement

Following a report, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) analyses whether the transactions are actually suspicious and, if necessary, shares the suspicious data with the investigative, intelligence and security services. When a violation is established, either De Nederlandse Bank as supervisor or the Public Prosecution Service can take enforcement action or prosecution.

Setup Rabobank

Unlike ING and ABN Amro bank, Rabobank did not enter into a settlement with the prosecution. Presumably because Rabobank believes that it is not subject to criminal charges. It is possible that Rabobank has actually taken all reasonable measures to combat money laundering. In 2024, 8,000 staff were already working in the Economic Crime Prevention (FEC) department and at one point were turning away about 10,000 customers a month, because the money flows were conspicuous and not well explained. This also affected customers in good faith. As the prosecution's investigation focuses on the period 2016-2021 and the bank has taken many measures since then, it can also be questioned what added value a punishment would bring now.

In any case, many customers who have already been turned away by Rabobank will not feel that the bank has done too little against money laundering. Rather too much.

Mr. D.M. Penn