The FATF ‘Black List’ of Non-Cooperative Countries or Territories

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 199-207

  Stessens, Guy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

FATF; money laundering; OECD; secrecy havens; tax havens

Indexed keywords

EID: 84981343906     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156501000097     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. These 15 jurisdictions are the following: Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Dominica, Israel, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Panama, Philippines, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent, and the Grenadines.
2. On this problem, see United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money-Laundering (1998); G. Stessens, Money Laundering. A New International Law Enforcement Model, at 92-95 and 152-154 (2000).
3. FATF, Annual Report 1989-90, at 8 (1990). See also European Commission, Second Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Money Laundering Directive, COM (1998) 401, at 4.
4. E. Savona, Dynamics of Organized Crime and Challenges in International Cooperation in Europe, in G. de Kerchove & A. Weyembergh (Eds.), Vers un espace judiciaire pénal européen, at 266-268 (2000).
5. Savona, Other terms used are “regulatory havens” or “tax havens” or “offshore havens.” note 6, at 267; FATF, Annual Report 1998-1999, at 31 (1990).
6. P. Bernasconi, Rapport général, in P. Bernasconi (Ed.), Blanchiment d'argent et secret bancaire, at 21 (1996).
7. The Egmont Group, a loosely-organised group of national financial intelligence units, has defined a FIU as follows: “A central, national agency responsible for receiving (and, as permitted, requesting), analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities, disclosures of financial information: (i) concerning suspected proceeds from crime, or (ii) required by national legislation or regulation, in order to counter money laundering.” See Stessens, Rapport général note 4, at 269-270.
8. The FATF adopted this Interpretative Note in 1999. See FATF, Annual Report 1998-1999, at 32 (1990).
9. Other criteria stress transparency, exchange on information and local business activities. For more details, see OECD, Towards Global Tax Co-operation. Report to the Ministerial Council Meeting and Recommendations by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs. Progress in Identifying and Eliminating Harmful Tax Practice, at 10 (2000). This and other OECD documents are available at http://www.oecd.int.
10. Although the FATF is an independent international body and not an institution of the OECD, it has its secretariat at the OECD headquarters in Paris.
11. These reports have been made in the past as part of the continuous peer review conducted by FATF, as well as by other FATF-styled regional bodies, e.g. the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering or the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF).
12. United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money-Laundering, at 29 (1998).
13. The warning was issued on 11 February 1999 in respect of anonymous savings passbooks and was lifted on 7 November 2000, after new legislation came into force on 1 November 2000, which required all holders new savings passbooks to be identified.
14. See Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, Making the Fight Against Financial Crime more Effective, Conclusions of the Joint ECOFIN/JHA meeting of 17 October 2000, Press Release, Luxembourg, 17 January 2000, Press 381, No. 12128/00.
15. See the Press Release on statement of FATF President on 5 October 2000, Progress Report on Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories, available at http://www.oecd.int.
16. During the debate on the draft Money Laundering Directive, an amendment that purported to prohibit financial transactions with third countries that did not apply comparable standards against money laundering to those established by the Community or to other equivalent standards, was rejected by the European Parliament. The amendment is reflected, however, in a watered-down form, in the preamble to the Directive (thirteenth ‘whereas’). See OJ No. L 166, 28.06.1991, p. 77.
17. See Stessens, During the debate on the draft Money Laundering Directive, an amendment that purported to prohibit financial transactions with third countries that did not apply comparable standards against money laundering to those established by the Community or to other equivalent standards, was rejected by the European Parliament. note 4, at 149-150. See also FATF Recommendation 25, available at http://www.oecd.int.
18. See Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, See also FATF Recommendation note 20, Press Release, Luxembourg, 17 January 2000, Press 381, No. 12128/00.
19. On the sovereignty argument, see Stessens, See Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council note 4, at 94-95 and 298.
20. Angry Over Bank Secrecy: Cayman Islanders Oust Leader, available at http://www.com/2000/WORLD/americas/11/10/caymanislands.ap/index.html (11 November 2000).
21. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Review of Financial Regulation in the Crown Dependencies, Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty, London (1998).
22. Assemblée nationale, Rapport d'information déposé en application de l'article 145 du Règlement par la commission des finances, de l'économie générale et du plan sur la lutte contra la fraude et l'évasion fiscale, Paris, at 47-195 (2000).