www.coe.int/moneyval

Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  Slideshare

About Moneyval

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

 

Activities

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

Evaluation

Yellow square Evaluation
Yellow square Key documents
Yellow square Evaluation reports

 

Jurisdictions

Yellow square Profiles

 

Publications

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

 

Newsroom

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

Evaluation reports

Click on the "Profiles" to access country reports.


The following types of country reports may be found:

Mutual evaluation report


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 public.


Follow-up in the 4th round


Regular follow-up

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.

Biennial update

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.

Enhanced follow-up

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 Procedures”).

Publication policy

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 evaluations

Progress report

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 rounds.

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 Recommendations.

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.


Compliance report


Countries may be required to submit a compliance report or regular compliance reports:
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 message;

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.