Beware the EU shortcut

When MLROs are populating their lists of high- and low-risk jurisdictions, they are advised to consult as wide a range of (reputable) sources as possible.  (For non-MLRO readers, the risk status of a jurisdiction matters because if it is judged to have a good approach to AML – sometimes called “equivalence” – then business coming through that jurisdiction might not need high levels of due diligence.  On the other hand, if a jurisdiction has been pinpointed as having deficiencies in its AML regime, then business connected with it will almost certainly trigger enhanced due diligence requirements.  That’s an over-simplification, but you get the idea.)  And one of the go-to sources is the list of EU Member States.

Looking for example at Part III of the JMLSG guidance issued for the UK financial sector, we read that in section 2.2 that “Member States of the EU/EEA benefit de jure from mutual recognition through the implementation of the money laundering directive” – and are therefore considered to be equivalent jurisdictions when it comes to AML efforts.  But the wise MLRO reads further, where the JMLSG elaborates: “Although firms may initially presume equivalence, significant variations may exist in the precise measures (and in the timing of their introduction) that have been taken to transpose the money laundering directive (and its predecessors) into national laws and regulations.  Moreover, the standards of compliance monitoring in respect of credit and financial institutions will also vary.”

I should coco.  The reason that this topic is on my mind at all is that I recently went on a rail holiday to eastern Europe.  One of the countries I visited was Romania – a member of the EU since January 2007 – and while I was there I got chatting to a local girl in her twenties who (and this was the common ground we found) had worked for several years as a beauty therapist in a spa in Jersey and was keen to keep her English language skills honed.  I asked her what it was like returning to Romania after her Jersey sojourn, and she said it was good to get back to the mountains and the familiar food, but she was in despair at the levels of corruption.  “Some of the older politicians are in jail now, but by no means all of the corrupt ones.  The new regime is trying, and the public does care about it – we realise that it’s important to get this right.  But until we get rid of the old order, we’re stuck.  Here in Romania you can still get wrong things done if you know the right people.”  So although Romania is – technically – an equivalent jurisdiction, it seems that using the EU shortcut would be foolish, as it seems that corruption is still endemic at the highest levels, which will surely have an impact on the implementation, checking and enforcement of the AML regime in the Romanian regulated sector.  And yes, I’ll try to plan future holidays so that I can check up on others for you.

This entry was posted in AML, Bribery and corruption and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Beware the EU shortcut

  1. Roy McCarthy says:

    And yet Romania is almost a paragon of virtue compared with other parts of the world Susan. Look forward to your inspection of North Korea 😉

  2. Robert James Long says:

    Assume equivalence can be a pest and a bit of a crutch for the lazy can’t it? As crime groups go Transnational various institutions, the EU being a one have set up channels and systems for European police forces to co-operate with each other. Sharing our (often hard won) intelligence is pretty much the most important part of that, but a lot of these institutions assume that if we are all in the EC, for example, we’re all on the same page regarding information security* and of course, corruption. Sadly that is not the case, and in this joined up world, if you’re a criminal operating in countries A, B, C and D, you don’t need to corrupt a official in each country,. Shared intelligence systems means you can crack the weakest nut (Say a police officer in Country C) and be well positioned to foil any investigation by countries A, B and D because your corrupt contact can access the intelligence through shared systems. I imagine its similar with Money Laundering.

    *I mention information security because it doesn’t have to be a corruption issues. Different judicial systems treat information quite differently from perhaps how the UK would do so which can cause problems.

  3. An excellent comment, Robert – thank you. Yes, the weakest link is the greatest danger in any reliance/sharing situation – a timely reminder.
    Best wishes from Susan

  4. Pingback: Prevention is better than cure | I hate money laundering

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s