CARIBBEAN FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE

Transcription

1 CARIBBEAN FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE CFATF FLOWCHARTS: MEVAL, FATF ICRG AND FOLLOW-UP PROCESSES The purpose of this document is to graphically show the Mutual Evaluation (MEVAL), FATF ICRG and Follow-Up processes. Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. March 7 th, CFATF. All rights reserved. No reproduction or translation of this publication may be made without prior written permission. Requests for permission to further disseminate reproduce or translate all or part of this publication should be obtained from the CFATF Secretariat at cfatf@cfatf.org

2 INTRODUCTION 1. The CFATF Procedures for the Fourth Round of AML/CFT Mutual Evaluations (CFATF Procedures) which were drafted based on the Universal Procedures for FATF/FSRBs (Universal Procedures), were approved by the CFATF May 2014 Plenary. Since the approval of the CFATF Procedures, there have been several amendments to ensure and reflect consistency with the Universal Procedures. 2. The purpose of this document is to provide clarity and an overview of the CFATF Procedures which also includes important documents generated and/or utilized by the Secretariat throughout the process and does not supersede the details of the CFATF Procedures approved by Plenary and the FATF ICRG Procedures for the 4 th Round of Mutual Evaluations. 3. For this reason, specific questions regarding the applicability of a particular step or practice outlined within should be clarified with the CFATF Procedures, FATF ICRG Procedures 1 and with the CFATF Secretariat. 4. The Glossary of terms and acronyms used in this document are the following: MER: Mutual Evaluation Report TCQ: Technical Compliance Questionnaire TC Annex: Technical Compliance Annex Scoping Note: document that identifies areas of lower and higher risk that need reduced or increased focus for the onsite visit. Sub-WGFI: Sub Working Group on FATF Issues. WGFI: Working Group on FATF Issues. ICRG: International Co-operation Review Group POPR: Post-Observation Period Report FUR: Follow-Up Report I. OVERVIEW OF THE CFATF MEVAL PROCESS With regard to the Mutual Evaluation process, the flowcharts have been divided as follows: I. Stage I: The Pre-Onsite Process II. Stage II: The Post-Onsite Process 1 Also, please note that the CFATF ICRG Procedures are currently being developed.

3 STAGE I PRE-ONSITE months before identified Qtr Request for confirmation of Prime Contact (PC)- liaison person for MEVAL Confirmation of dates of on-site visit 13 At least 2 weeks Finalize logistics for on-site MEVAL Team to prepare revised TC Annex and send to assessed country 02 At least 11 months before Secretariat sends TCQ for completion (Most recent version of the FATF Methodology) 12 At least 3 weeks before Assessment Team to finalize on-site Agenda & key agencies to meet during on-site months before Secretariat to identify possible Assessors At least 6 months before 04 Secretariat confirms Assessment Team Secretariat invites delegations to submit info on (a) the assessed country s risk and (b) their int l cooperation experiences with the assessed country 11 At least 1 month before Secretariat compiles responses from members FATF and FSRBs (re: Int l cooperation & risk) Assessed country submits draft onsite Agenda to Assessment Team 14: ON-SITE VISIT: MEMBER COUNTRY OPTIONAL 5 8 months before Pre-Assessment Training facilitated by the Secretariat / Country self-trains OPTIONAL (Subject to availability of funds) 1 2 months before Pre-Onsite Training facilitated by the Secretariat 05 At least 6 months before Country submits completed TCQ Analysis of submitted TCQ by Assessors and Secretariat MEVAL Team begins to produce TC Annex Secretariat establishes secure portal for Assessors to access all relevant documents 10 At least 2 months before Assessment Team to send Draft Scoping note to reviewers At least 4 months before Assessors submit draft TC 06 Annex to Secretariat Assessed Country provides Effectiveness information At least 4 months before At least 2 ½ months before Assessment Team to send Draft Scoping note to country Country to respond within one week Secretariat confirms Reviewers At least 3 months before 08 Secretariat liaises with country to begin work on logistics for onsite

4 STAGE II POST-ONSITE 01 Mission Leader (ML) engages with Assessment Team to produce 1 st draft MER 02 6 weeks after on-site visit 1 st Draft of MER to be sent to assessed country for review and comments One month weeks after onsite visit One month * Assessed country to respond to 1 st draft MER and Executive Summary (ES) * MEVAL Team to provide comments on 1 st Draft MER weeks after onsite visit Assessment Team to Prepare and send 2 nd draft MER to country and reviewers 05 Minimum of 10 weeks Assessed Country: Provide comments on Draft 2 of MER Reviewers: Provide comments on Draft 2 of MER Minimum Before 06 8 weeks Plenary If requested by the country, one day Face to face meeting & conference calls to discuss 2 nd Draft MER and comments Presentation of MER to Plenary Development of Key Issues for Plenary (after WGFI Meeting) 12 WGFI Meeting (Plenary Week) 11 Conference Call between WGFI Co-Chairs, Secretariat Sub-working group Chair and CFATF Chairperson to develop key issues Compile and circulate to all delegations, key issues for discussion at WGFI meeting Minimum of 2 weeks 10 WGFI Sub-Working Group Chair to compile comments from the working group & delegations in preparation for conference call with WGFI Co- Chairs, Secretariat and CFATF Chairperson Minimum of 3 weeks 09 Send Draft 3 MER together with reviewers comments and assessment team responses to all delegations and to the WGFI sub-working group Minimum of 5 weeks 08 Confirm WGFI sub-working group membership and Chair 07

5 II. FATF ICRG PROCESS FLOWCHART Jurisdiction meets referral and prioritisation criteria ADOPTION OF THE MER BY THE CFATF PLENARY Jurisdiction meets referral BUT NOT the prioritisation criteria Referral to FATF ICRG for Observation (at the next FATF Plenary). One-year Observation Period starts Jurisdiction is referred to the CFATF MER follow-up process Observation Period ends (one year from the referral to the FATF ICRG) Jurisdiction demonstrates sufficient progress addressing their MER deficiencies Jurisdiction does not make sufficient progress addressing their MER deficiencies JG drafts POPR to FATF ICRG (after the face to face with the jurisdiction) Jurisdiction continues under CFATF MER follow-up monitoring Jurisdiction may be referred to the FATF ICRG (by the Nomination process) JG presents POPR to the next FATF ICRG meeting (with and Action Plan if after their analysis of the Big 6 and other if the country had 20 or more total PC/NC ratings and assesses progress in each IO rated low or moderate the jurisdiction did not made sufficient progress) FATF ICRG determines that jurisdiction HAS MADE ENOUGH PROGRESS The jurisdiction is referred back to the CFATF for MER follow-up process FATF ICRG determines that jurisdiction has NOT MADE ENOUGH PROGRESS Jurisdiction DOES NOT PROVIDE High-level political commitment it goes to the Public Statement Jurisdiction PROVIDES High-level political commitment it goes to the Compliance document If progress is made in the Action Plan, propose an on-site visit and exit the FATF ICRG process JG monitors progress and makes recommendations to the FATF ICRG (one year after) If no progress is made in the Action Plan, Public statement and application of Rec. 19

6 III. CFATF FOLLOW-UP PROCESS FLOWCHART a) REGULAR FOLLOW-UP Jurisdiction is placed on REGULAR FOLLOW-UP based on the MER results ADOPTION OF THE MER BY THE CFATF PLENARY information and determines that progress HAS been made FUR is presented at the CFATF Plenary for INFORMATION ONLY 1 st FUR is presented 5 PLENARIES after the adoption of the MER Jurisdiction does NOT SEEK re-rating Secretariat 2 MONTHS information and determines that progress HAS NOT been made if jurisdiction moves to and if additional measures are put in place 2 nd FUR presented 2 PLENARIES after 1 st FUR 3 rd FUR presented 2 PLENARIES after 2 nd FUR Jurisdiction SEEKS re-ratings Secretariat 6 MONTHS If the jurisdiction lowers its compliance to a level that Plenary considers equivalent to NC/PC on any or more of R.3, 5, 10, 11, 20 it will be placed in GROUP OF EXPERTS receive the information sent by the jurisdiction and sends its analysis at least 5 weeks Pre-Plenary Review of the FUR is sent to the Global Network 5 WEEKS if jurisdiction b) stays in REGULAR FOLLOW-UP if jurisdiction is placed in Post-Plenary Global Quality and Consistency Review of the FUR is sent to the Global Network after Plenary (if applicable) and the FUR is published

7 c) Jurisdiction is placed on based on the MER results ADOPTION OF THE MER BY PLENARY information and determines that progress HAS been made FUR is presented at the CFATF Plenary for INFORMATION ONLY 1 st FUR is presented 3 PLENARIES after the adoption of the MER (if the country meets the FATF ICRG referral and prioritization criteria the 1 st FUR would be 2 PLENARIES ) Jurisdiction does NOT SEEK re-rating Secretariat 2 MONTHS information and determines that progress HAS NOT been made if jurisdiction stays in and if additional measures are put in place 2 nd FUR presented 2 PLENARIES after 1 st FUR 3 rd FUR presented 2 PLENARIES after 2 nd FUR Jurisdiction SEEKS re-ratings Secretariat 6 MONTHS GROUP OF EXPERTS receive the information sent by the jurisdiction and sends its analysis at least 5 weeks Pre-Plenary Review of the FUR is sent to the Global Network 5 WEEKS if jurisdiction is placed in REGULAR FOLLOW-UP if jurisdiction stays in Post-Plenary Global Quality and Consistency Review of the FUR is sent to the Global Network after Plenary (if applicable) and the FUR is published