NO.304 What should countries do to help prevent non-profit organizations from being abused for the financing of terrorism according to the Financial Action Task Force 40 Recommendations?
According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40 Recommendations, countries should implement measures to prevent the abuse of non-profit organizations (NPOs) for the financing of terrorism. One of these measures is to ensure that NPOs cannot be used to conceal or obscure the diversion of funds intended for legitimate purposes to terrorists’ organizations. This means that countries should have effective mechanisms to monitor and supervise NPOs, especially those that are at risk of terrorist financing abuse, and to take appropriate actions against NPOs that are involved in such activities. Countries should also ensure that NPOs maintain adequate records of their activities and transactions, and that these records are accessible to competent authorities. Furthermore, countries should promote transparency and accountability in the NPO sector, and encourage NPOs to conduct due diligence on their donors, beneficiaries, and associates.
References: =
* FATF 40 Recommendations, Recommendation 8 and Interpretive Note to Recommendation 8
* Best Practices on Combating the Abuse of Non-Profit Organisations, FATF, June 2015
* COMBATING THE ABUSE OF NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS (RECOMMENDATION 8),
FATF, June 2015
Reference: http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/BPP-combating-abuse-non- profitorganisations.pdf (p.9)
NO.313 To ensure that an institution’s anti-money laundering program is current, which step should be taken?
According to the Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS, an institution’s anti-money laundering program should be reassessed at least annually to ensure that it is current, effective, and compliant with the applicable laws and regulations. The reassessment should include a review of the institution’s risk assessment, policies and procedures, internal controls, training, and independent testing. The reassessment should also consider any changes in the institution’s products, services, customers, geographic locations, or business environment that may affect its exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks1.
The other options are not consistent with the best practices of maintaining an up-to-date anti-money laundering program. For example:
* The program should be evaluated and updated at least every six months by the Board of Directors.
While the Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the institution’s anti-money laundering program, it is not required to evaluate and update the program every six months. This may be
* too frequent and impractical, especially for large and complex institutions. The Board of Directors should, however, approve the program and any significant changes, and ensure that senior management implements and enforces the program effectively1.
* The program should be reviewed by a federal law enforcement officer for gaps in controls. While federal law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations or examinations of the institution’s anti-money laundering program, they are not responsible for reviewing the program for gaps in controls. This is the role of the institution’s internal audit function or an external independent party, who should conduct periodic testing of the program’s adequacy and effectiveness1.
* The program should be sent to the institution’s government regulator on a periodic basis. While the institution’s government regulator may request or review the institution’s anti-money laundering program as part of its supervisory or enforcement activities, the institution is not obligated to send the program to the regulator on a periodic basis. The institution should, however, report any suspicious or unusual transactions or activities to the relevant authorities, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) or the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)1.
References:
* Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (the 6th edition) by ACAMS
NO.315 According to the Financial Action Task Force, financial institutions should exit the relationship with a client in which case?
According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), financial institutions should apply a risk-based approach to customer due diligence (CDD), which includes obtaining and updating information on the identity, beneficial ownership, and business activities of their clients. If a client refuses to provide or update such information, or provides false or misleading information, the financial institution should consider this as a red flag for potential money laundering or terrorist financing, and should exit the relationship with the client, unless the circumstances warrant otherwise. Exiting the relationship with a client who refuses to update information is also consistent with the FATF’s Recommendation 10, which requires financial institutions to terminate the business relationship if they are unable to perform CDD measures.
References:
1: This document contains the FATF’s 40 Recommendations, which are the international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Recommendation 10 covers the CDD requirements for financial institutions, and paragraph 22 states that “If the financial institution is unable to comply with paragraphs 10 to 12, 15 and 17, it should not open the account, commence business relations or perform the transaction; or should terminate the business relationship; and should consider making a suspicious transactions report in relation to the customer.”
2: This document provides guidance on the implementation of the FATF’s Recommendations on transparency and beneficial ownership, which are relevant for CDD purposes. It explains the definition of beneficial owner, the risks associated with legal persons and arrangements, and the effective mechanisms to combat the misuse of such entities. It also provides examples of situations where financial institutions should exit the relationship with a client, such as when the client refuses to provide or update information on beneficial ownership or control, or when the client is a shell company or a trust with no legitimate economic purpose.
NO.316 Which is the first valid step in the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) international cooperation process?
Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is a form of cooperation between different countries for the purpose of collecting and exchanging information and evidence in criminal matters. MLA is usually governed by bilateral or multilateral treaties that establish the procedures and requirements for requesting and providing assistance.
The first valid step in the MLA process is to send a formal request from the central authority of the requesting country to the central authority of the requested country. The central authority is the designated entity that is responsible for making, receiving, and facilitating the execution of MLA requests. The request should contain the necessary information and documents to enable the requested country to assess and execute the request, such as the nature and purpose of the request, the legal basis, the description of the assistance sought, the identity of the persons involved, the applicable legal provisions, and the deadline for the response. The request may also be accompanied by a commission letter of request, which is a judicial document that authorizes a foreign authority to perform certain acts on behalf of the requesting authority, such as taking evidence or statements from witnesses or suspects.
References:
Guidelines on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5,
2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24,
2.25, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.34, 2.35, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.41, 2.42,
2.43, 2.44, 2.45, 2.46, 2.47, 2.48, 2.49, 2.50, 2.51, 2.52, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.60,
2.61, 2.62, 2.63, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68, 2.69, 2.70, 2.71, 2.72, 2.73, 2.74, 2.75, 2.76, 2.77, 2.78,
2.79, 2.80, 2.81, 2.82, 2.83, 2.84, 2.85, 2.86, 2.87, 2.88, 2.89, 2.90, 2.91, 2.92, 2.
Reference:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/Publications/Mutual_Legal_Assistance_Ebook_E.pdf
NO.317 When a regulatory body requires international assistance in a money laundering inquiry, such assistance is typically obtained by
The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) is a global network of FIUs that facilitates and promotes the exchange of information, knowledge, and cooperation among its members to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes1. The Egmont Group has developed operational guidance for international cooperation and information exchange among FIUs, which includes channels, procedures, and forms for making and receiving requests2. Filing a request under Egmont guidelines is therefore a common and effective way for a regulatory body to obtain international assistance in a money laundering inquiry, as it ensures that the request is made through the appropriate and secure channel, and that it meets the standards and expectations of the requested FIU.
References:
1: Home – Egmont Group
2: EGMONT GROUP OF FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNITS OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR
…
NO.321 Which action does the Financial Action Task Force call on member countries to take in the most serious cases when countries have significant strategic AML deficiencies?
According to the FATF Recommendations (2012), page 111, the FATF calls on its members and urges all jurisdictions to apply enhanced due diligence and, in the most serious cases, countermeasures to protect the international financial system from the money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing risks emanating from countries with significant strategic AML/CFT deficiencies. Countermeasures are proportionate and effective actions that can be applied by countries individually or collectively to protect their financial systems from these risks. Examples of countermeasures include restricting or prohibiting financial transactions with the high-risk country, requiring financial institutions to review and terminate correspondent relationships with the high-risk country, or applying enhanced reporting mechanisms or systematic reporting of financial transactions with the high-risk country.
References:
FATF Recommendations (2012), page 111
FATF Public Statement on High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action, February 20232 FATF Guidance on Countermeasures, October 20103
English 
Japanese 
Korean 
German 
Chinese
Leave a Reply