Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEYVAL)

About Moneyval

Yellow square Background information
Yellow square Moneyval in brief
Yellow square Statute
Yellow square Rules of procedure
Yellow square Secretariat



Yellow square General overview
Yellow square Voluntary tax compliance
Yellow square Restricted access 


Yellow square About the evaluation
Yellow square Key documents
Yellow square Evaluation reports



Yellow square Profiles



Yellow square Activity reports
Yellow square Typologies reports
Yellow square Horizontal reviews


Web resources

Yellow square International standards
Yellow square Tools
Yellow square Useful links



Yellow square  News archive
Yellow square  Press releases
Yellow square  Special events
Yellow square  Fraud warning


What is the MONEYVAL evaluation procedure? 

MONEYVAL’s system of peer review is based on the FATF model, however the process of self-assessment and mutual evaluation is undertaken against a more extensive set of anti-laundering standards. In addition to the Forty Recommendations and the nine Special Recommendations on the Financing of Terrorism, participating countries are assessed in relation to their compliance with the 1988 UN and 1990 Council of Europe conventions and the 3rd EU Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing.

The MONEYVAL evaluation process is based on the Rules of Procedure, which were revised by MONEYVAL at its 32nd plenary meeting in March 2010.

The mutual evaluation questionnaire (MEQ) for this 4th cycle was adopted by the MONEYVAL plenary in March 2009 (including questions relating to other MONEYVAL specific standards, e.g. the EU Directive). Countries are required to return a completed MEQ to the MONEYVAL Secretariat at least 2 months before the on-site visit.

This is followed by an on-site country visit by a team of experts and a member of the Secretariat with a view to meeting practitioners who work in the sectors concerned to obtain further information, particularly on the effectiveness of implementation. The on-site visit normally lasts between 8-10 days. The visit leads to the drafting of the evaluation report, which goes through a number of rounds of consultation between the evaluators and the Secretariat and is subsequently sent to the evaluated country for comments. The report is revised in the light of the comments accepted by the evaluators in the course of a joint meeting with representatives from the country. It is then submitted for consideration and adoption by the Committee.

The report adopted by MONEYVAL provides a summary of the AML/CFT measures in place in the country as at the date of the on-site visit or immediately thereafter. It describes and analyses these measures, and provides recommendations on how certain aspects of the systems could be strengthened. It also sets out the country’s levels of compliance with the FATF 40 + 9 Recommendations. Decisions on follow-up are taken at the time of the adoption of the report. All countries are normally required to provide a follow-up report or biennial update 2 years after the adoption of the 4th round report.

The Committee can invoke further peer pressure through an enhanced follow-up process, involving a graduated series of steps to ensure compliance with specific aspects of the mutual evaluation report.

Besides the country assessment reports, the Committee also examines other types of reports as part of its evaluation process:

• under the 3rd cycle of evaluation the Committee examines progress and where necessary compliance reports;
• under the 4th cycle biennial updates, regular and enhanced follow-ups.

The MONEYVAL publication policy reflected in the Rules of Procedures for the 4th cycle of evaluation process is also applicable to the 3rd cycle. The mutual evaluation reports should be automatically published within 1 month after the adopted report is sent to the country to check that amendments made to the report during the plenary discussion are in line with plenary decisions and for any comments from the evaluated country it wishes to make for publication. As for the follow-up, progress and compliance reports, they are published within 1 month after the discussion and adoption by the MONEYVAL plenary.

MONEYVAL's evaluation rounds

The evaluation process of the participating States is based on several rounds.

First evaluation round (1998-2000)
The first round of mutual evaluations was initiated in April 1998 and on-site visits were concluded in December 2000. 22 Council of Europe member states were assessed in the first evaluation round.

Second evaluation round (2001-2004)
MONEYVAL concluded its second round of on-site visits at the end of 2003. This second round included evaluation against the criteria for non-cooperative states and territories. Monaco was assessed in this round. Additionally, MONEYVAL also conducted on-site evaluation visits covering both money laundering and terrorist financing in several member States (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Third evaluation round (2005-2009)
The third round of mutual evaluations ended in December 2009. All these evaluations were conducted on the basis of the 40 FATF Recommendations 2003 and the 9 Special Recommendations on the financing of terrorism. The evaluations followed the 2004 AML/CFT assessment Methodology agreed with the FATF, the FSRBs, IMF and World Bank. This evaluation round was focused on the effectiveness of the legal, financial and law enforcement measures in place to combat both money laundering and financing of terrorism. 28 members of the Council of Europe were assessed in this evaluation round. Additionally, Israel was evaluated by MONEYVAL following the decision of the Committee of Ministers in 2006 accepting Israel's application to become subject to the MONEYVAL evaluation procedures.

Follow-up evaluation round (Started in October 2009)
The aim of MONEYVAL’s fourth cycle of assessment visits is to follow-up the recommendations made in the 3rd round. The 4th round of assessment visits does not necessarily cover all the 40+9 FATF Recommendations and Special Recommendations. The evaluation team examines the effectiveness of implementation of all core and key and some other important FATF recommendations (i.e. Recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 17, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 40, and SRI, SR.II, SR.III, SR.IV and SR.V), whatever the rating achieved in the 3rd round. Additionally, the examiners reassess the effectiveness of implementation of all those other FATF recommendations where the rating was non-compliant (NC) or partially compliant (PC) in the 3rd round.

International standards upon which
MONEYVAL evaluations are based

the 2003 40 FATF Recommendations

the 1988 UN Convention on Illicit Traffic of Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna Convention and the 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (Palermo Convention)

the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (Strasbourg Convention) 

the 9 Special Recommendations of FATF on financing of terrorism and several other related UN instruments (UN Convention for Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, relevant UN Security Council Resolutions for the freezing of terrorist assets)

Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing 

European Commission Directive  2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis