The technical compliance component of the Methodology refers to the implementation of the specific requirements of the FATF Recommendations, including the framework of laws and enforceable means; and the existence, powers and procedures of competent authorities. For the most part, it does not include the specific requirements of the standards that relate principally to effectiveness. These are assessed separately, through the effectiveness component of the Methodology.
The FATF Recommendations, being the recognised international standards, are applicable to all countries. However, assessors should be aware that the legislative, institutional and supervisory framework for AML/CFT may differ from one country to the next. Provided the FATF Recommendations are complied with, countries are entitled to implement the FATF StandardsThe FATF Standards comprise the FATF Recommendations and their Interpretive Notes. in a manner consistent with their national legislative and institutional systems, even though the methods by which compliance is achieved may differ. In this regard, assessors should be aware of the risks, and the structural or contextual factors for the country.
The technical compliance component of the Methodology sets out the specific requirements of each Recommendation as a list of criteria, which represent those elements that should be present in order to demonstrate full compliance with the mandatory elements of the Recommendations. Criteria to be assessed are numbered sequentially for each Recommendation, but the sequence of criteria does not represent any priority or order of importance. In some cases, elaboration (indented below the criteria) is provided in order to assist in identifying important aspects of the assessment of the criteria. For criteria with such elaboration, assessors should review whether each of the elements is present, in order to judge whether the criterion as a whole is met.
or each Recommendation assessors should reach a conclusion about the extent to which a country complies (or not) with the standard. There are four possible levels of compliance: compliant, largely compliant, partially compliant, and non-compliant. In exceptional circumstances, a Recommendation may also be rated as not applicable. These ratings are based only on the criteria specified in the technical compliance assessment, and are as follows:
Рейтинги технического соответствия
There are no shortcomings.
There are only minor shortcomings.
There are moderate shortcomings.
There are major shortcomings.
A requirement does not apply, due to the structural, legal or institutional features of a country.
When deciding on the level of shortcomings for any Recommendation, assessors should consider, having regard to the country context, the number and the relative importance of the criteria met or not met.
It is essential to note that it is the responsibility of the assessed country to demonstrate that its AML/CFT system is compliant with the Recommendations. In determining the level of compliance for each Recommendation, the assessor should not only assess whether laws and enforceable means are compliant with the FATF Recommendations, but should also assess whether the institutional framework is in place.
Weighting – The individual criteria used to assess each Recommendation do not all have equal importance, and the number of criteria met is not always an indication of the overall level of compliance with each Recommendation. When deciding on the rating for each Recommendation, assessors should consider the relative importance of the criteria in the context of the country. Assessors should consider how significant any deficiencies are given the country’s risk profile and other structural and contextual information (e.g., for a higher risk area or a large part of the financial sector). In some cases a single deficiency may be sufficiently important to justify an NC rating, even if other criteria are met. Conversely a deficiency in relation to a low risk or little used types of financial activity may have only a minor effect on the overall rating for a Recommendation.
Overlaps between Recommendations – In many cases the same underlying deficiency will have a cascading effect on the assessment of several different Recommendations. For example: a deficient risk assessment could undermine risk-based measures throughout the AML/CFT system; or a failure to apply AML/CFT regulations to a particular type of financial institution or DNFBP could affect the assessment of all Recommendations which apply to financial institutions or DNFBPs. When considering ratings in such cases, assessors should reflect the deficiency in the factors underlying the rating for each applicable Recommendation, and, if appropriate, mark the rating accordingly. They should also clearly indicate in the MER that the same underlying cause is involved in all relevant Recommendations.
Comparison with previous ratings - Due to the revision and consolidation of the FATF Recommendations and Special Recommendations in 2012, and the introduction of separate assessments for technical compliance and effectiveness, the ratings given under this Methodology will not be directly comparable with ratings given under the 2004 Methodology.