It is generally recognised that the Board of Directors is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the AML / KYC regulations are adhered to for the corporate structure or fund. This is enshrined in the concept of joint and several liability and responsibility and underpins the rationale for a board with diversified skill sets. But how can one be sure that they are involved in those periodic situations where the TA suspects something and reports up there own chain of command...without the Board being involved?
It is exactly this issues with which the CSSF has been grappling during the summer months and now into Fall of 2019. It seems that, taking industry input into consideration, the regulator has run the entire gambit from "Making a particular board member (solely) responsible for AML / KYC matters" (a stance which would undermine the "joint and several" principle mentioned above) to the more pragmatic approach of "The fund must have an appoint MLRO whom the CSSF can contact for AML / KYC issues related to the entity; the MLRO role able to be fulfilled by a board member, the AIFM or a service provider."
Once again a good example of the pragmatism of the CSSF. We are all awaiting further guidance to be issued to confirm our general understanding of where the CSSF is headed.