MONEYVAL VS. FATF; UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE

 

Ahead of tomorrow's Plenary Session of the Financial Action Task Force,  the FATF,  during which Malta will be discussed, we need to explain why the "passing grade" given to Malta by MONEYVAL will not necessarily translate into a favourable decision by the FATF on Greylisting Malta this week. It's really a case of apples and oranges.

MONEYVAL relies upon whether the jurisdiction has enacted the appropriate AML/CFT legislation, as well as creates policies and procedures to fight money laundering, and the countering of terrorist financing.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) requires that laws and policies not only be there, but that Malta has an ongoing and effective programme which works in interdicting money laundering and terrorist financing. Are there positive results ? If not, then it is not effective.

In plain English, while Malta may have the laws and procedures in place to fight financial crime, unless they are actually observed and implemented, with results that can be seen, the FATF may fail the jurisdiction. Given the multiple abject failures to enforce the law against PILATUS BANK, SATABANK, and its officers and directors, FATF may consider Malta's laws ineffective, and Greylist it forthwith. 

We trust that this clears up the issue for those who have equated the MONEYVAL decision as dispositive for the FATF. Of course, the whole thing is subject to Europolitics, which may result in something we have not anticipated; stay tuned.