An AML audit is a process of evaluating an organization's compliance with AML regulations and best practices. The audit report should provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the organization's AML program and identify any gaps or deficiencies that need to be addressed. The compliance program should use the audit findings as an opportunity to improve its AML risk management and internal controls, and to implement corrective actions as needed. The audit findings should not be ignored or dismissed, but rather used as a tool to enhance the organization's AML compliance performance and effectiveness.
References:
1: This web page explains what an AML compliance program is, why it is important, and what are the key components of an effective program. It also states that an AML compliance program should involve a regular review of the internal controls and systems used to detect and report financial crime, and measure their effectiveness in meeting compliance standards.
2: This blog post provides an overview of the importance and steps of an AML audit, and how to perform one effectively. It also suggests that an AML audit is a starting point to strengthen and improve the AML program, and that the insights from the audit should prompt action by the compliance team to address the deficiencies discovered.
3: This blog post discusses the best practices for AML audit compliance, and emphasizes the need for an ongoing testing process, including the audit, to keep the AML program current and effective. It also recommends effective communication among all employees who follow the program and procedures.

According to the Third European Union Money Laundering Directive (3rd AMLD), a politically exposed person (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state, government ministers, judges, senior military officers, or members of parliament1. The 3rd AMLD requires institutions and persons covered by the Directive to apply enhanced customer due diligence measures when dealing with PEPs residing in another Member State or in a third country, in order to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing risks1. The 3rd AMLD also specifies that a person who is no longerentrusted with a prominent public function shall not be considered a PEP after a period of at least one year has elapsed since that person left office, unless the institution or person covered by the Directive has knowledge or reason to believe that the person is still exposed to specific risks2. However, the Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, which lays down implementing measures for the 3rd AMLD, extends this period to at least two years, and allows Member States to extend it further, depending on the level of risk and the type of prominent public function involved3.
1: Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing
2: Article 3(8) of Directive 2005/60/EC
3: Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of 'politically exposed person' and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis

According to the ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, one of the key elements of an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program is ongoing training for all relevant staff. Training should cover the legal and regulatory obligations, the risks and red flags of money laundering and terrorist financing, the procedures and controls for customer due diligence and transaction monitoring, the reporting and record-keeping requirements, and theroles and responsibilities of the staff and the management. Training should also be tailored to the specific functions and needs of the staff, and should be updated regularly to reflect the changes in the AML environment and the FI's policies and procedures.
PEPs are considered high-risk customers for AML purposes, as they may abuse their positions of power and influence to commit or facilitate corruption, bribery, embezzlement, or other financial crimes. Therefore, it is essential that the FI's staff are aware of the definition and categories of PEPs, the sources and methods to identify and verify PEPs, the enhanced due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring that apply to PEPs, and the escalation and reporting procedures for suspicious activities involving PEPs .
If an internal audit reveals that a large group of employees do not know how to handle PEPs, this indicates a serious gap in the FI's AML training program, which could expose the FI to regulatory sanctions, reputational damage, and legal liabilities. Therefore, the next course of action that should be taken is to create a company- wide training program that covers the relevant aspects of PEPs, and to ensure that the training is delivered to all staff who deal with PEPs or have access to PEP-related information. The training should also be evaluated for its effectiveness and impact, and the results should be reported to the senior management and the board of directors.
ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 2: Developing an Effective Anti-Money Laundering Program, page 51-52 ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 3: Conducting Customer Due Diligence, page 75-78 FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and 22), June 2013, 1 ACAMS CAMS Study Guide, 6th Edition, Chapter 4: Conducting Ongoing Monitoring, page 97-98 Reference: https://www.acamstoday.org/all-politically-exposed-persons-are-local/

Having inadequate privacy policies and procedures can expose an organization to legal risks such as industry or regulatory sanctions and charges of deceptive business practices. Industry or regulatory sanctions can result from violating the laws and regulations that govern data privacy and protection, such as the GDPR, the CCPA, or the GLBA.These sanctions can include fines, penalties, injunctions, or revocation of licenses.
Charges of deceptive business practices can arise from misleading or false statements about how the organization collects, uses, or discloses personal data, or from failing to comply with its own privacy policies and procedures. These charges can lead to lawsuits, settlements, or enforcement actions by authorities such as the FTC or the state attorneys general.
=
The 4 Biggest Risks of Non-Compliance With Data Privacy Regulations
Security and privacy laws, regulations, and compliance: The complete guide An Ethical Approach to Data Privacy Protection

The following were the key features of the Second Directive:
* It extended the scope of the First Directive beyond drug-related crimes. The definition of "criminal activity" was expanded to cover not just drug trafficking, but all serious crimes, including corruption and fraud against the financial interests of the European community.
* It explicitly brought bureaux de change and money remittance offices under AML coverage.
* It clarified that knowledge of criminal conduct can be inferred from objective factual circumstances.