- FirstBank and Azuri to deepen financial inclusion in Nigeria
- Research finds banks’ leveraged loan pipeline could pose a threat to financial stability
- CrowdBureau launches P2P lending and equity crowdfunding index
- UK Finance responds to Which? call for a new 'cash' regulator
- Treasury Committee publishes correspondence from FOS about economic crime
- An IFISA is as the perfect middle ground for saving, according to Zopa
- Banks to invest heavily in updating legacy systems to combat challenger banks expired
- MetaBank® launches faster payments platform with Mastercard Send expired
- Leeds adds no-fee, fixed-rate mortgage to retirement interest-only market expired
- ABN AMRO results impacted by cost of anti-money laundering safeguards expired
- Crédit Agricole’s net income sees sharp rise in 2018 expired
- Credit Suisse Group reports first annual post-tax profit since 2014 expired
21st September 2018
Chief executive of Danske Bank resigns after money-laundering investigation
It has been reported that the chief executive of Danske Bank, Thomas Borgen, has resigned in the wake of alleged money-laundering involving its Estonian operation. Mr Borgen quit following an internal investigation into payments through its Estonian branch.
The BBC reported that the Danish bank believed many of the payments were suspicious. The bank said it was unable to determine how much money was believed to have been laundered through the branch between 2007 and 2015, but it’s thought to be in the region of EUR200bn.
Mr Borgen said it was clear Danske had failed to live up to its responsibilities, which he regretted. "Even though the investigation conducted by the external law firm concludes that I have lived up to my legal obligations, I believe that it is best for all parties that I resign," he said.
Estonia's Financial Supervision Authority (FSA) is now examining the findings of Danske's internal investigation. Estonian FSA chairman Kilvar Kessler said: "The report describes serious shortcomings in the organisation of Danske Bank, where risk appetite and risk control were not in balance.”