A Jersey lawyer specialising in the field of money laundering and financial services regulation has questioned the validity of the European Union’s
A Jersey lawyer specialising in the field of money laundering and financial services regulation has questioned the validity of the European Union’s ‘white list’ of countries whose money-laundering controls are considered to be equal to those of EU member states, and which notably excludes leading offshore fund jurisdictions in Europe and the Caribbean.
Stephen Platt, an English barrister and chairman of BakerPlatt Group, queries the inclusion on the list of countries such as Russia, Argentina and Mexico, as well Australia and Canada, which have been adjudged to be less than 25 per cent compliant with the international standards established by the Financial Action Task Force.
Platt describes as "bewildering" the suggestion that the white list countries have higher standards of anti-money laundering controls than leading offshore financial services jurisdictions including the UK’s Crown Dependencies.
"Having researched the background to some of the countries included, we question why countries that fall behind recognised international standards are on the list, while finance centres such as Jersey, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands are not," says Platt, who advises governments and regulators on the implementation of regulatory and anti-money laundering rules.
An analysis by BakerPlatt and its alliance partner in London, Seven Bedford Row, notes that the first mutual evaluation report on Russia in 2001 by the European Committee on Crime Problems noted as a "critical deficiency" the country’s lack of comprehensive laws and regulations implementing international standards on money laundering.
Although a second evaluation in 2004 noted significant improvements, it also found that numbers of investigations, prosecutions and convictions for money laundering were falling and know your customer procedures remained deficient.
A report on Argentina by Gafisud, a regional FATF offshoot for South America, noted inherent weaknesses in legislation that had the effect of impeding successful prosecution of money laundering, while no offence of terrorist financing existed. The country was criticised for its failure to provide statistics in anti-money laundering areas, preventing an assessment of the implementation of core requirements from being carried out.
The FATF’s September 2004 report described the application of anti money laundering measures in Mexico as somewhat haphazard, and said the lack of mutual legal assistance legislation not only inhibited the country’s ability to co-operate internationally, it also undermined national prosecutions. Bank and trust secrecy was also criticised as impeding investigations.
In addition, the lawyers say, while the FATF praised South Africa for developing a legislative structure to combat money laundering, the absence of a framework to combat the financing of terrorism was noted, whilst the framework in place was so new it needed time to be assessed for its effectiveness.
BakerPlatt notes that Jersey, which was not included on the white list, was assessed as 76 per cent compliant at the time of the island’s last assessment by the International Monetary Fund in 2003. The most recent FATF assessments, issued in November last year, rated the Bahamas as 45 per cent compliant and Cayman as 78 per cent compliant.
However, five of the 13 countries on the list were far below this level, according to their most recent IMF assessments: Australia (24 per cent), Canada (14 per cent), Singapore (23 per cent), Switzerland (22 per cent) and the US (31 per cent).
"Australia’s and Canada’s staggering level of non-compliance with FATF recommendations makes it difficult for the EU to justify their inclusion on the white list on the grounds of ‘equivalence’," Platt says.
"Given that the EU recently announced that it is to pursue infringement measures against 15 of its member states for failing to implement the Third Money Laundering Directive into national law, it would perhaps be better placed to give a jurisdiction such as Jersey the recognition it deserves, and the role model some of its member states appear to need, as the leader in the field of anti-money laundering."