The guidelines for addressing the risks associated with Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) in fighting money laundering and terrorism financing can be simplified and explained with examples as follows:
-
Recognition and Categorization of PEPs
- Framing of Rules: Banks and certain other businesses must establish rules to identify individuals who hold or have held important governmental positions, or their families and friends. For instance, if a new customer is the mayor of a city, the bank needs to take special precautions to scrutinize their transactions more thoroughly.
- Consideration for Secondary Roles: It’s not only the individuals at the highest levels that are of concern. Sometimes, those in lower positions might also misuse their influence. Consider a manager in a government department leveraging their superior’s influence to secure deals. This scenario should also be flagged as a risk by banks.
-
Directive on PEP Categorization
- Provision of Clear Instructions: Regulatory bodies should provide detailed, actionable guidance to aid in the identification of PEPs. This may include generating lists of specific roles considered to be significant public functions, such as governors, senators, or directors of state-owned enterprises.
- Using Public Information: Banks are encouraged to consult public records to assist in PEP identification. If a politician is required to disclose their assets publicly, this information can be used to verify the legitimacy of their funds.
-
Evaluation of Family Members and Close Associates
- Detailed Approach: Banks must exercise caution when assessing the risk of engaging with PEPs’ families and close associates, recognizing that this can vary widely across different countries and cultures. For example, a bank in India dealing with a client who is the cousin of a high-ranking official abroad should scrutinize their transactions more closely.
- Awareness of Potential Evasion: PEPs may attempt to use their relatives or associates to obscure their financial activities. If a minister’s spouse makes large, unexplained transfers, this should be viewed as a potential warning sign.
-
Consistent Risk Assessment and Surveillance
- Continuous Monitoring: The risk associated with PEPs does not vanish once they exit their official roles. Banks must continue to monitor these individuals. For example, a former ambassador could still wield significant influence that might be exploited.
- Staying Flexible: Banks need to adjust their monitoring intensity based on new information. If a retired official enters a business frequently interacting with the government, closer observation of their financial transactions may be warranted.
-
Adoption of Effective AML/CFT Measures
- Risk Plans: Banks should devise robust strategies to manage risks posed by PEPs. This includes vigilant transaction monitoring and preparedness to respond to suspicious activities.
- Educating Staff: It’s crucial for all employees to recognize PEPs and understand the actions to take upon identification. Training might cover how to inquire effectively to determine if a new client has governmental ties.
- Sharing Information: Banks should legally share insights and data about PEPs among themselves. Discovering significant information about a PEP and sharing it appropriately can aid other institutions.
- Implementation of Defined Protocols: Banks must establish clear procedures for initiating or continuing relationships with PEPs. This may involve securing approval from senior management before opening an account for a PEP or conducting additional verification of their financial sources.
