Click on the
"Country profiles" to access country reports.
The following types of country reports may be
Third and fourth round evaluation reports: These reports
provide a summary of the AML/CFT measures in place in the country as at the date
of the on-site visit or immediately thereafter. They describe and analyse these
measures, and provide recommendations on how certain aspects of the systems
could be strengthened. They also set out the country’s levels of compliance with
each of the FATF 40+9 Recommendations under review. The 4th round is shorter and
focused on the core and key and some other important Recommendations (whatever
the rating in the 3rd round) and all Recommendations, which were non-compliant
or partially compliant in the 3rd round.
Draft mutual evaluation reports are subject to peer review
and can be amended in plenary. After the report is adopted, it is sent to the
country to check that amendments made are in line with plenary decisions and for
any comments on the report for publication. Publication takes place no later
than one month after the revised report has been sent to the country
following plenary adoption.
First and second round evaluation reports: Reports adopted
under these rounds remain confidential. Only the summary of the report is
Follow-up in the 4th round
The Regular follow-up applies where the mutual evaluation
report shows there are significant deficiencies in the country’s AML/CFT system.
This process is thus applied in two circumstances: where any of Recommendations
1, 5, 10, 13 or Special Recommendations II or IV are rated either PC or NC or
where the Plenary so decides.
The normal first step in the follow-up process requires an assessed country to
report back to the plenary two years after the 4th round MER is adopted and
provide information on the actions it has taken or is taking to address the
factors/deficiencies underlying any of the 40 + 9 Recommendations that are rated
partially compliant (PC) or non-compliant (NC).
The assessed country provides a short interim follow-up report to the
Secretariat setting out the remedial action it has taken and a proposal on the
MONEYVAL plenary meeting at which it would wish to report back. Where the
Secretariat felt that a country had failed to make adequate progress, the
Secretariat prepares a short summary paper and raises the issue in the plenary,
and the MONEYVAL plenary would have a discussion on whether a more expedited
follow-up or another approach should be taken. If the Secretariat did not have
concerns about the progress made, then the country’s interim report would be
provided as an information item to the plenary.
No later than two years after the discussion of their 4th
round MER, assessed countries provide a succinct update to the Secretariat
describing the new measures that have been adopted and implemented to deal with
the identified deficiencies in relation to any of the 40 + 9 Recommendations
that are rated partially compliant (PC) or noncompliant (NC). This should always
include all the updated data or statistics as required under Recommendation 32.
Biennial updates are not subject to a Secretariat written
analysis, the peer review of such reports are conducted by Rapporteur countries.
The additional, graduated steps in the follow–up policy for
4th round mutual evaluations (enhanced follow-up) are the steps that are taken
generally in MONEYVAL in respect of countries undergoing evaluation by MONEYVAL
which are not in compliance with the Reference Documents or the recommendations
in mutual evaluation reports (traditionally known as “Compliance Enhancing
The MONEYVAL publication policy applies to actions taken
under MONEYVAL’s 4th round follow-up process, and appropriate details of any
follow-up action and the result of that action will be published. As regards
biennial updates and interim follow-up reports, these are not published,
although if requested by the country, a link is provided from the MONEYVAL
website to a website of the country on which it can place the biennial update or
interim follow-up report and any other information relevant to the actions it is
taking to enhance its AML/CFT system. As regards the detailed analysis report
prepared at the time the country is removed from the follow-up process, this
will be placed on the MONEYVAL website.
Other reports carried out under the 3rd cycle of
Under the third evaluation round, all countries are required
to provide a progress report 12 months after the adoption of their mutual
evaluation report, based on a questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat. Such
reports are subject to routine updates every two years between evaluation
The report will contain a general overview of the current
situation and the developments since the last evaluation relevant in the AML/CFT
field, an update on improvements which have been made in respect of the FATF
core Recommendations (Recommendations 1, 5, 10, 13; Special Recommendations II
and IV), an update on improvements which have been made in respect of those
other FATF Recommendations which were rated either non-compliant or partially
compliant in the mutual evaluation report; specific questions related to the
Third European Union Directive (2005/60/EC) and the Implementation Directive
(2006/70/EC) and updated statistical data. According to the Rules of Procedure
the Secretariat has to provide a written analysis of progress against the core
Progress reports are subject to peer review. If the Plenary
is satisfied with the information provided and the progress undertaken, the
progress report submitted by the country and the analysis of the progress on the
core recommendations are adopted. Publication occurs immediately following the
Plenary in which the report was examined and adopted.
Countries may be required to submit a compliance report or regular compliance
a) in the context of action taken by MONEYVAL in respect of countries subject to
its evaluation procedures under the "Compliance Enhancing Procedures", which
fail to implement the reference documents or the recommendations in the mutual
evaluation report (Step I of the Compliance Enhancing Procedures) and
b) in cases where the examination of a progress report raises significant
concerns about the extent of or speed of progress overall to rectify
deficiencies identified in the mutual evaluation report (paragraph 42 of the
Rules of Procedure).
Such reports are analysed in writing by the Secretariat and subject to Plenary
peer review and adoption. Publication occurs following the Plenary in which the
report was examined.
Compliance Enhancing Procedures are a graduated series of steps as follows:
Step i - the Chairman of MONEYVAL sending a letter with copy to the
MONEYVAL Plenary, to the Head of Delegation concerned, drawing his/her attention
to non-compliance with the reference documents and requesting the country
concerned to provide a report to the next Plenary or regular reports on its
progress in implementing the reference documents;
Step ii - the Chairman of MONEYVAL sending a letter with a copy to the
Head of Delegation concerned, to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe,
drawing his/her attention to non-compliance by a MONEYVAL participating State
with the reference documents;
Step iii - the Secretary General of the Council of Europe sending a
letter to the relevant Minister(s) of the State, drawing his/her/their attention
to non-compliance with the reference documents;
Step iv - arranging a high-level mission (including selected Heads of
CDPC Delegation) to the participating State in question to reinforce this
Step v - in the context of the application of Recommendation 21 of the
FATF by MONEYVAL States, issuing a formal public statement to the effect that a
State insufficiently complied with the reference documents.