FATF Immediate Outcomes consolidated compliance · FATF Immediate Outcomes consolidated compliance...

FATF Immediate Outcomes consolidated compliance

Version: 7 November 2018 - 62 jurisdictions

© All rights reserved. Not for commercial use. Indicative only. Rely only on FATF source data. Attribute to R F Pol/AMLassurance.com. This document is available at https://bit.ly/2O6K4x7 .com

https://bit.ly/2O6K4x7

Licence/royalty free for research and news media fair use.

(PowerPoint format may be available on request)

Attribute to Dr R F Pol/AMLassurance.com © 2013-2018, all rights reserved.

Not for commercial use, except by prior arrangement in writing.

Indicative only. Rely only on FATF source data.

We appreciate being notified of your use of these materials, eg in articles etc.

Email: [email protected]

Additional materials available at: www.amlassurance.com

LICENCE TERMS

.com

http://www.amlassurance.com/

Low, 222, 33%

Moderate, 306, 45%

Substantial, 146, 21%

High, 8, 1%

.com

62 jurisdictionsDec 2014 - Nov 2018

‘Effectiveness’ complianceImmediate Outcomes: All ratings

© All rights reserved. Not for commercial use. Indicative only. Rely only on FATF source data. Attribute to R F Pol/AMLassurance.com. This document is available at https://bit.ly/2O6K4x7

Source: FATF ratings available here (p21)


http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/mutualevaluations/documents/fatf-methodology.html

Low33%

Moderate45%

Substantial21%

High1%

.com


‘Effectiveness’ complianceImmediate Outcomes: All ratings %





45%

65% 69% 73% 76% 81% 81% 85% 89% 90%98%

55%

35% 31% 27% 24% 19% 19% 15% 11% 10%2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

IO2 IO9 IO1 IO6 IO11 IO10 IO8 IO3 IO7 IO5 IO4

Low+Moderate Substantial+High

.com


‘Effectiveness’ complianceImmediate Outcomes: All ratings % grouped



45%

65% 69% 73% 76% 81% 81% 85% 89% 90%98%

55%

35% 31% 27% 24% 19% 19% 15% 11% 10%2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Low+Moderate Substantial+High

.com


‘Effectiveness’ complianceImmediate Outcomes: All ratings % grouped


IO2 International co-operation 55%

IO9 TF investigations, prosecution 35%

IO1 Risk, policy, co-ordination 31%

IO6 Financial intelligence 27%

IO11 Proliferation financial sanctions 24%

IO10 TF preventive measures, sanctions 19%

IO8 Confiscation 19%

IO3 Supervision 13%

IO7 ML investigation, prosecution 11%

IO5 Legal persons, arrangements 10%

IO4 Preventive measures 2%


.com


‘Effectiveness’ complianceImmediate Outcomes: All ratings % individual


FATF Immediate Outcome Substantial + High Low + Moderate

IO2 International co-operation 55% 45%

IO9 TF investigations, prosecution 35% 65%

IO1 Risk, policy, co-ordination 31% 69%

IO6 Financial intelligence 27% 73%

IO11 Proliferation financial sanctions 24% 76%

IO10 TF preventive measures, sanctions 19% 81%

IO8 Confiscation 19% 81%

IO3 Supervision 15% 85%

IO7 ML investigation, prosecution 11% 89%

IO5 Legal persons, arrangements 10% 90%

IO4 Preventive measures 2% 98%


10%

27% 26% 21%

50%

34%40%

31%

45% 44%31%

35%

37% 44% 52%

26%47%

40% 55%

44% 47% 68%52%

34%31% 26% 23% 18% 16%

15% 11% 10%2%3% 2% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Low Moderate Substantial High

.com





.com




FATF Immediate Outcome Low Moderate Substantial High

IO2 International co-operation 10% 35% 52% 3%

IO9 TF investigations, prosecution 27% 37% 34% 2%

IO1 Risk, policy, co-ordination 26% 44% 31% -

IO6 Financial intelligence 21% 52% 26% 2%

IO11 Proliferation financial sanctions 50% 26% 23% 2%

IO10 TF preventive measures, sanctions 34% 47% 18% 2%

IO8 Confiscation 40% 40% 16% 3%

IO3 Supervision 31% 55% 15% -

IO7 ML investigation, prosecution 45% 44% 11% -

IO5 Legal persons, arrangements 44% 47% 10% -

IO4 Preventive measures 31% 68% 2% -


1.66

1.66

1.71

1.76

1.82

1.84

1.87

2.05

2.08

2.10

2.48

0 1 2 3 4

IO5: Legal persons, arrangements

IO7: ML investigation, prosecution

IO4: Preventive measures

IO11: Proliferation financial sanctions

IO8: Confiscation

IO3: Supervision

IO10: TF preventive measures, sanctions

IO1: Risk, policy, co-ordination

IO6: Financial intelligence

IO9: TF investigation, prosecution

IO2: International co-operation

Low Moderate Substantial High

Average 1.91

‘Effectiveness’ compliance 62 jurisdictionsDec 2014 - Nov 2018

Immediate Outcomes: Overall weighted ratings consolidated

© All rights reserved. Not for commercial use. Indicative only. Rely only on FATF source data. Attribute to R F Pol/AMLassurance.com. This document is available at https://bit.ly/2O6K4x7 .com

Methodology: Pol, “Anti-money laundering effectiveness ratings: Ranking countries and outcomes”, ACAMS Today, Dec 2017-Feb 2018.




0

1

2

3

4

IO1. Risk, policy, co-ordination

IO2. Internationalco-operation

IO3. Supervision

IO4. Preventivemeasures

IO5. Legal persons,arrangements

IO6. Financialintelligence

IO7. MLinvestigation,prosecution

IO8. Confiscation

IO9. TFinvestigation,prosecution

IO10. TF preventivemeasures, sanctions

IO11. Proliferationfinancial sanctions

Average 1.91

.com


‘Effectiveness’ complianceImmediate Outcomes: Overall weighted ratings consolidated


Methodology: Pol, “Anti-money laundering effectiveness ratings: Ranking countries and outcomes”, ACAMS Today, Dec 2017-Feb 2018.


Fourth round jurisdictions assessedDec 2014-Nov 2018 62 jurisdictions

.com© All rights reserved. Not for commercial use. Indicative only. Rely only on FATF source data. Attribute to R F Pol/AMLassurance.com. Available from https://bit.ly/2OvunQd

• Andorra

• Antigua and Barbuda

• Armenia

• Australia

• Austria

• Bahamas

• Bahrain

• Bangladesh

• Barbados

• Belgium

• Bhutan

• Botswana

• Cambodia

• Canada

• Cook Islands

• Costa Rica

• Cuba

• Denmark

• Dominican Republic

• Ethiopia

• Fiji

• Ghana

• Guatemala

• Honduras

• Hungary

• Iceland

• Indonesia

• Ireland

• Isle of Man

• Italy

• Jamaica

• Kyrgyzstan

• Latvia

• Macao

• Madagascar

• Malaysia

• Mauritius

• Mexico

• Mongolia

• Myanmar

• Nicaragua

• Norway

• Palau

• Panama

• Portugal

• Samoa

• Saudi Arabia

• Serbia

• Singapore

• Slovenia

• Spain

• Sri Lanka

• Sweden

• Switzerland

• Thailand

• Trinidad and Tobago

• Tunisia

• Uganda

• Ukraine

• United States of America

• Vanuatu

• Zimbabwe

https://bit.ly/2OvunQd

Laundry-wash: FATF ratings clean the toughest stain• Ronald F Pol, Interest.co.nz https://bit.ly/2PfFvBa and LinkedIn (with PDF): https://bit.ly/2PlduYTMore than 120 jurisdictions’ anti-money laundering systems will be evaluated in the next decade. Leaked results from the UK’s ‘mutual evaluation’ reveal an effectiveness deficit flagged in scientific research, and opportunities for countries to boost FATF ratings.

Visualising all AML/CTF evaluations• Ronald F Pol, LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/2RUJbqnThe large number of evaluations in the "fourth round" of country-level AML/CFT evaluations (2014-) and the way they are presented makes it difficult to visualise global results, compare countries, and compare ratings. This article releases some of my own resources developed for 'at-a-glance' system-wide insights.

Uncomfortable truths? ML=BS and AML=BS2

• Ronald F Pol, Journal of Financial Crime, 2018, Vol 25 No 2 (2018): http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFC-08-2017-0071This article applies outcome effectiveness principles to anti-money laundering, exposing and expanding the industry’s open secret: it is almost completely ineffective. If your organization does not have access rights to academic journals, the full article is available for a small charge from the publisher.

Anti-money laundering effectiveness: Assessing outcomes or ticking boxes? • Ronald F Pol, Journal of Money Laundering Control, 2018, Vol 21 No 2 (2018): http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-07-2017-0029The first independent assessment applying outcome effectiveness principles to the new global methodology for evaluating anti-money laundering effectiveness based on specified outcomes. This article explains why the new methodology is incapable of assessing effectiveness as it purports. • our organization does not have access rights to academic journals, the full article is available for a small charge from the publisher.

Anti-money laundering effectiveness ratings: Ranking countries and outcomes• Ronald F Pol, ACAMS Today, Dec 2017-Feb 2018.There is no official consolidated 'effectiveness' country rating or ranking. This article offers simple new ways to rank country ratings. • LinkedIn (author summary & link to source): https://bit.ly/2q9KGEHAccess to the full article may depend on your organization’s ACAMS subscription access.

Additional materials available at: www.amlassurance.com. For specific ratings comparators, contact us directly.

AUTHOR RELEVANT ARTICLES

.com

https://bit.ly/2PlduYT

https://bit.ly/2PfFvBa

https://bit.ly/2PlduYT

https://bit.ly/2RUJbqn

https://bit.ly/2RUJbqn

Uncomfortable truths? ML=BS and AML=BS2

http://dx.doi.org/

http://www.doi.org/10.1108/JFC-08-2017-0071

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-07-2017-0029

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-07-2017-0029

https://bit.ly/2q9KGEH

https://bit.ly/2q9KGEH

http://www.amlassurance.com/

mailto:[email protected]

FATF Immediate Outcomes consolidated compliance · FATF Immediate Outcomes consolidated compliance...

Documents

Transcript of FATF Immediate Outcomes consolidated compliance · FATF Immediate Outcomes consolidated compliance...