关于客户尽职调查的目的和意义，业内人士表示，客户尽职调查是金融机构履行反洗钱义务的核心环 节，也是识别异常情形、阻断洗钱活动的重要防线。 随着对洗钱及相关犯罪的监测和打击力度不断增强，犯罪分子利用金融渠道进行洗钱的方式更加复杂、 隐蔽。业内专家表示，在实际案例中，不法分子组织批量开户、控制他人银行和第三方支付账户转移资 金、安排人员多次分散取现，并通过伪装业务场景、分拆交易、复杂化资金流转路径等规避监测打击， 这无疑对金融机构反洗钱工作提出了更高要求。 中国人民银行、金融监督管理总局、中国证监会11月28日发布《金融机构客户尽职调查和客户身份资料 及交易记录保存管理办法》。专家表示，管理办法围绕"基于风险"的核心原则，要求金融机构根据客户 特征和交易活动的性质、风险状况开展客户尽职调查，避免采取与洗钱风险状况明显不匹配的措施，平 衡好洗钱风险防控和优化金融服务的关系。 基于风险开展客户尽职调查 关于管理办法中的"基于风险开展客户尽职调查"，业内人士表示，既包括金融机构对较低洗钱风险采取 简化措施，也包括对涉及较高洗钱风险的情形采取强化尽职调查措施。 例如，在银行网点的日常业务中，领取养老金的社保账户常被视为典 ...

Core Viewpoint - The new requirements for customer due diligence by financial institutions aim to balance risk prevention and service optimization, effective from January 1, 2026 [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Framework - The People's Bank of China, the Financial Regulatory Administration, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission have released guidelines for customer due diligence and transaction record management [1]. - The guidelines emphasize the need for financial institutions to "know your customer" to identify suspicious activities and prevent money laundering [1][2]. Group 2: Risk-Based Approach - The management measures are based on a "risk-based" principle, requiring institutions to tailor their due diligence efforts according to customer characteristics and transaction risks [3]. - Institutions are encouraged to implement simplified measures for low-risk scenarios while applying enhanced measures for high-risk situations [3]. Group 3: Balancing Security and Convenience - There is a challenge in balancing financial security with customer convenience, as some clients express dissatisfaction with excessive inquiries during transactions [4]. - The guidelines aim to address this issue by clarifying the specific requirements and scope of customer due diligence, moving away from rigid cash transaction thresholds [5]. Group 4: Technological Integration - Experts suggest that financial institutions should leverage technology to enhance risk monitoring capabilities while maintaining a customer-friendly approach [5].

（原标题：三部门完善金融机构客户尽职调查管理办法 明年1月1日起施行，强调"基于风险"原则） 证券时报记者 贺觉渊 11月28日，中国人民银行、国家金融监督管理总局、中国证券监督管理委员会联合发布《金融机构客户 尽职调查和客户身份资料及交易记录保存管理办法》（以下简称《管理办法》），自2026年1月1日起施 行。《管理办法》围绕"基于风险"的核心原则，要求金融机构根据客户特征和交易活动的性质、风险状 况开展客户尽职调查，避免采取与洗钱风险状况明显不匹配的措施。 客户尽职调查是金融机构履行反洗钱义务的核心环节，也是识别异常情形、阻断洗钱活动的重要防线。 在客户尽职调查中如何适当平衡安全与便利，是当前金融治理不可回避的问题——单位和个人往往希望 客户尽职调查等工作越"无感"越好；与此同时，监管部门每年收到大量关于银行尽职调查不到位导致客 户资金被骗或者遭受其他损失的投诉。 《管理办法》提出，在业务关系存续期间，应当持续关注并评估客户整体状况及交易情况，了解客户的 洗钱、恐怖融资风险。涉及较高洗钱、恐怖融资风险的，应当采取相应的强化尽职调查措施，必要时可 以采取与风险相匹配的洗钱风险管理措施。涉及较低洗钱、恐怖融资 ...

11月28日，金融机构客户尽职调查的最新要求出炉，涉及多项金融业务，引起公众普遍关注。如何客观看待办理业务时银行的各种询问？金 融机构该怎样平衡好风险防控和优化服务？ 指导金融机构"了解你的客户" 28日，中国人民银行、金融监管总局、中国证监会对外公布了《金融机构客户尽职调查和客户身份资料及交易记录保存管理办法》，指导金 融机构合理、有效开展客户尽职调查，并自2026年1月1日起施行。 当前，不法分子利用金融渠道洗钱的方式日趋复杂隐蔽。客户尽职调查，就是要求金融机构"了解你的客户"，识别异常情形、阻断洗钱活 动。 根据管理办法，商业银行等金融机构和从事汇兑业务的机构，为客户开立账户或者提供规定金额以上的一次性金融服务，应当开展客户尽职 调查，并登记客户身份基本信息。 "仅凭借留存的客户身份信息和后台资金监测，银行难以及时、准确地发现可疑客户和交易。有时也需要询问客户办理业务的目的、资金来源 用途等信息，以准确判断客户交易是否正常、合理。"西南财经大学中国金融研究院副院长董青马说。 在专家看来，这既是金融机构审慎经营的需要，也有助于防范金融风险、维护群众切身利益。 也正是基于此，在反洗钱工作起步较早的国家和地区 ...

为落实《反洗钱法》有关要求，有效应对反洗钱国际评估，规范金融机构客户尽职调查、客户身份资料及交易记录保存行为，11月28日，中国人民银行、国家 金融监督管理总局、中国证券监督管理委员会正式发布《金融机构客户尽职调查和客户身份资料及交易记录保存管理办法》（下称《管理办法》），自2026年1 月1日起施行。 前期，《管理办法》在制定过程中广泛征求了包括金融机构在内的各界意见，并参考相关反洗钱国际标准和国内实践，进一步完善了金融机构客户尽职调查的相关 规定。 在客户尽职调查中如何适当平衡安全与便利，是当前金融治理不可回避的问题——单位和个人往往希望客户尽职调查等工作越"无感"越好；与此同时，监管部门每 年收到大量关于银行尽职调查不到位导致客户资金被骗或者遭受其他损失的投诉。 业内人士指出，本次《管理办法》强调"基于风险"开展客户尽职调查，正是从监管层面对这一矛盾作出的制度性回应，推动金融机构在提供金融服务时更加充分、 合理地兼顾安全和便利。 围绕"基于风险"原则平衡安全与便利 今年1月1日，新修订的《反洗钱法》正式施行，突出基于风险开展客户尽职调查的工作导向。本次《管理办法》围绕"基于风险"的核心原则，要求金融机构 ...

专家表示，管理办法围绕"基于风险"的核心原则，要求金融机构根据客户特征和交易活动的性质、风险状况开展客户尽职调查，避免采取与洗钱风险状况 明显不匹配的措施，平衡好洗钱风险防控和优化金融服务的关系。 中国人民银行、金融监督管理总局、中国证监会11月28日发布《金融机构客户尽职调查和客户身份资料及交易记录保存管理办法》。 "此时银行就需要多加关注，采取措施了解、核实交易背景，一旦有合理理由怀疑涉嫌洗钱和相关犯罪的情况，需要及时依法采取相关措施。"上述工作人 员说。 关于客户尽职调查的目的和意义，业内人士表示，客户尽职调查是金融机构履行反洗钱义务的核心环节，也是识别异常情形、阻断洗钱活动的重要防线。 随着对洗钱及相关犯罪的监测和打击力度不断增强，犯罪分子利用金融渠道进行洗钱的方式更加复杂、隐蔽。业内专家表示，在实际案例中，不法分子组 织批量开户、控制他人银行和第三方支付账户转移资金、安排人员多次分散取现等做法并不鲜见。通过伪装业务场景、分拆交易、复杂化资金流转路径 等，规避监测打击。这无疑对金融机构反洗钱工作提出了更高要求。 在类似上述的较高风险情形下，金融机构仅凭借留存的客户身份信息和后台资金监测，难以及时、准确 ...

2025.11. 28 本文字数：2214，阅读时长大约4分钟 作者 | 第一财经 杜川 央行、金融监管总局、证监会于11月28日对外发布《金融机构客户尽职调查和客户身份资料及交易记录保存管理办法》 （下称《办法》），明确取消规定金额以上现金存取需登记资金来源或用途的硬性要求，与几个月前的征求意见稿保持一 致。目前来看，《办法》更加强调金融机构基于风险开展客户尽职调查，把握好洗钱风险防控和优化金融服务的平衡。 该专家强调，客户尽职调查是金融机构履行反洗钱义务的核心环节，也是识别异常情形、阻断洗钱活动的重要防线。随着 对洗钱及相关犯罪的监测和打击力度不断增强，犯罪分子利用金融渠道进行洗钱的方式更加复杂、隐蔽。在实际案例中， 不法分子组织批量开户、控制他人银行和第三方支付账户转移资金、安排人员多次分散取现等做法并不鲜见。通过伪装业 务场景、分拆交易、复杂化资金流转路径等，规避监测打击。这无疑对金融机构反洗钱工作提出了更高要求。 平衡安全与便利 实践中，金融机构在开展客户尽职调查、向客户获取更多信息的过程中，可能会引起社会公众关于此举正当性的疑问和触 及个人隐私的隐忧。 从内容来看，《办法》以风险导向为核心，杜绝尽 ...

Core Viewpoint - The People's Bank of China has approved new regulations for financial institutions regarding customer due diligence and the management of customer identity information, which will take effect on January 1, 2026 [1] Group 1: Regulatory Framework - The new regulations were reviewed and approved during the 14th executive meeting of the People's Bank of China on October 11, 2025 [1] - The regulations have received consent from the National Financial Regulatory Administration and the China Securities Regulatory Commission [1] Group 2: Affected Institutions and Services - The regulations apply to policy banks, commercial banks, rural cooperative banks, rural credit cooperatives, village and town banks, and institutions engaged in foreign exchange business [1] - Financial institutions must conduct customer due diligence and record basic identity information when establishing business relationships or providing certain financial services, particularly for transactions exceeding RMB 50,000 or the equivalent of USD 10,000 [1]

Core Viewpoint - The People's Bank of China has released the "Management Measures for Customer Due Diligence and Customer Identity Information and Transaction Record Retention" emphasizing a risk-based approach to customer due diligence, balancing anti-money laundering (AML) risk prevention and the optimization of financial services [1][2]. Group 1: Risk-Based Approach - The management measures require financial institutions to conduct customer due diligence based on customer characteristics and the nature of transaction activities, avoiding measures that are clearly mismatched with the money laundering risk status [1][3]. - The measures aim to address the tension between the public's desire for convenient financial services and the need for security against rising criminal activities such as telecom fraud and online gambling [1][2]. Group 2: Simplified Measures for Low-Risk Situations - Financial institutions are instructed to adopt simplified measures for low money laundering risk scenarios, while implementing enhanced due diligence for high-risk situations [3][4]. - For example, if a customer's income source is clear and transactions are stable, banks may only require basic identity verification without additional documentation [4]. Group 3: Privacy Protection and Due Diligence - The management measures highlight that conducting customer due diligence does not conflict with personal privacy protection, as it is essential for preventing the financial system from being exploited by criminal activities [5][6]. - Financial institutions are required to maintain confidentiality of customer identity and transaction information obtained during due diligence, with legal consequences for violations [7]. Group 4: Distinction Between Anti-Money Laundering and Fraud Prevention - There is a clear distinction between anti-money laundering efforts and anti-fraud measures, with each having different legal bases, methodologies, and objectives [7]. - Anti-money laundering relies on customer due diligence and transaction monitoring, focusing on preventive measures tailored to specific risk scenarios [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of the legal actions taken against Chen Zhi, the chairman of the Prince Group, highlighting the vulnerabilities in Singapore's family office regulations and the potential for misuse in cross-border financial crimes [4][24]. Group 1: Legal Actions and Implications - On October 14, the U.S. and U.K. jointly prosecuted and sanctioned Chen Zhi for leading a major cross-border investment fraud and money laundering network, marking the largest coordinated action against Southeast Asian cybercrime to date [5][18]. - The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) listed the "Prince Group Transnational Criminal Organization" and 146 related individuals and entities for sanctions, with the New York Eastern District Attorney charging Chen with conspiracy to commit telecom fraud and money laundering [5][18]. - The case has raised questions about Singapore's financial integrity, as it has been described as a "pressure test" for the country's financial system, revealing regulatory gaps and the dual effect of high trust levels [4][24]. Group 2: DW Capital's Role - DW Capital, established by Chen Zhi in Singapore, has been identified as the central hub for laundering operations, falsely presenting itself as a legitimate family office managing over SGD 60 million [9][20]. - The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is investigating DW Capital for potential regulatory violations, as it reportedly does not hold a Capital Markets Services (CMS) license [9][20]. - Chen's team utilized multiple shell companies registered at the same address in Singapore, which have been deemed nodes for money laundering activities [10][20]. Group 3: Operational Tactics - Chen Zhi's operations involved creating a façade of legitimacy through various entities, including DW Capital and other shell companies, to facilitate the laundering of illicit funds [8][21]. - The article outlines a "washing" strategy where high-value assets like luxury homes and yachts were used to obscure the origins of funds, alongside charitable foundations to enhance public image [15][21]. - The network's complexity, including the use of variable capital companies and offshore entities, has made it difficult to trace the actual control and source of funds, thus enabling the laundering of proceeds from criminal activities [20][21]. Group 4: Regulatory Response and Future Outlook - Following the revelations, Singapore's authorities have initiated investigations and asset seizures, with approximately SGD 150 million in assets being frozen [18][24]. - The case has prompted Singapore to reassess its regulatory framework for family offices, balancing the need to attract legitimate capital while preventing the influx of illicit funds [22][24]. - The MAS has begun implementing stricter regulations, including enhanced due diligence and transparency requirements for family offices, to mitigate risks associated with financial crimes [24][25].