The Istvan G. Pinter Case: The anti-money laundering report as a trap

The CEO made a serious mistake when he seated the company’s internal auditor and the head of corporate security in the same room. Before long, an excellent professional relationship developed between them. The internal auditor told Pinter that his predecessor had been removed for inexplicable reasons, while he himself had uncovered several instances of misconduct by senior management within a few months. When this internal auditor was also put under pressure, Pinter tried to defend her, but was unsuccessful.

It was not part of the security manager’s duties to prepare the annual money laundering report for the Hungarian National Bank; this was not included in his job description either. The CEO therefore – while keeping his salary unchanged – assigned him the task of handling compliance duties as well. As a qualified banking lawyer, he knew how important the annual AML reports are to the financial system. He was also aware that the person preparing the report bore financial responsibility for its content. Yet he was not concerned, as the company’s deputy CEO had previously served as an internal auditor at a renowned Austrian bank and could be consulted if necessary.

The deadline for the AML report was the end of 2018, but the CEO returned the completed draft for revision. Armed with factual evidence, Pinter refused to comply and lodged objections with the CEO, the CEO’s deputy, and the owner’s integrity expert. In the end, he was not dismissed in the same manner as the internal auditors. The company was reorganized shortly thereafter, eliminating Pinter’s position. He filed a labor lawsuit over his dismissal, but it was unsuccessful. The presiding judge was unable to obtain the internal correspondence proving Pinter’s case, as it had been destroyed in the meantime. The previously eliminated position was reinstated shortly thereafter.