ONPCSB (AML) sanctions – defence, appeal & compliance plan

Reporting entities can be sanctioned for AML/CFT compliance failures (risk assessment, customer due diligence, reporting duties, record-keeping, internal procedures). I assist with the immediate response to a control, the defence file for a sanction, and a practical compliance plan designed to reduce repeat exposure.

Informațiile sunt generale și nu înlocuiesc consultanța juridică. Contează faptele, actele și cronologia.

When you may need this

You receive a control report, minutes, or a sanctioning decision from ONPCSB.
You are accused of missing or late suspicious transaction reporting.
Your internal AML risk assessment or procedures are challenged during a control.
You face issues with KYC/CDD files, beneficial ownership checks, or documentation gaps.
You need to respond to requests for information and provide evidence quickly.
You want a remediation plan that is operational (not just policy text) and defensible.
Your group has cross-border AML obligations and you need alignment with EU rules.
You need to limit business disruption while the case is ongoing.

What we do, step by step

Scope review: identify the exact legal basis of the alleged breach and what ONPCSB expects as proof.
File triage: collect CDD/KYC files, risk assessments, training records, reporting logs, and audit trails.
Procedural checks: verify service, form requirements, and whether facts and evidence support the sanction.
Defence submissions: prepare structured objections and evidence packages; avoid unsupported admissions.
Compliance plan: build a practical remediation roadmap (roles, timelines, controls, documentation, training).
Implementation support: update templates and workflows to match real operations (onboarding, monitoring, reporting).
Appeal planning: define claims, evidence, and remedial requests; coordinate stakeholder communication.

Documents/information useful for the first assessment

Document	Why it matters	Notes
ONPCSB control report / minutes and sanctioning decision	Defines the alleged breach and factual findings	Include annexes and proof of service
AML risk assessment and methodology	Core document for proportionality of controls	Provide the version applicable at the time
KYC/CDD files for the sample clients/transactions questioned	Main evidentiary material in many cases	Export and preserve files defensibly
Reporting logs (STRs, other reports) and internal escalation records	Shows whether and when reporting duties were met	Keep system extracts and timestamps
Training records, internal policies, monitoring and audit materials	Shows governance and preventive measures	Provide both policy and evidence of execution

Risks & common mistakes

Producing incomplete KYC files or losing the audit trail (who did what and when).
Trying to fix files retroactively without documenting remediation transparently.
Using generic templates that do not match real operations and data flows.
Missing deadlines for submissions or failing to address the exact alleged breaches.
Inconsistent explanations from compliance, sales, and management.
Ignoring cross-border group procedures that contradict local practice.

FAQ

Who is a “reporting entity” under Romanian AML law?

Romanian AML law lists categories of entities that must apply AML/CFT measures (financial institutions and various professionals and businesses). Whether you qualify depends on your activity and on how the law defines your category.

Can ONPCSB sanction us for documentation gaps even if no money laundering occurred?

AML sanctions often target compliance failures (procedures, monitoring, record-keeping, reporting) regardless of whether a predicate offence is proven. The case must still be assessed against the legal requirements and the evidence in the file.

What is the difference between contesting a fine and implementing remediation?

Contesting focuses on whether the sanction is lawful and justified in your specific case. Remediation focuses on reducing future exposure and demonstrating that operations are aligned with AML obligations. They can run in parallel with careful messaging and documentation.

What evidence usually matters most in an AML sanctions case?

Typically: the exact KYC/CDD file content at the relevant time, system logs and timestamps, your risk assessment, proof of monitoring, internal escalations, and how reporting decisions were taken and documented.

Can we challenge ONPCSB’s sanction in court?

Yes, but the procedural route and deadlines depend on the act type and the governing law. A review of the decision and service date is essential before choosing the steps.