Accuity: Treating ‘DysPEPsia’
Posted: 24 January 2017 | Source: Accuity
Diagnosing the problem
Politically Exposed Persons, or PEPs, have been a topic of interest for many years and the term has been written into multiple pieces of compliance legislation in various countries. Yet there is still no single global definition of a PEP. In fact, the guidelines provided by governmental and regulatory bodies can be infuriatingly ambiguous. This is contrary to many other aspects of customer due diligence which seem straightforward in comparison – such as applying risk weightings to certain geographies, industries, and products of potential concern.
More recently however, anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing controls have become more stringent around the world, and more countries are implementing and enforcing regulations. Whether this is a result of the findings of a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) mutual evaluation, due to a political shift within a specific country, or simply down to increasing levels of regulation, PEPs are now a global area of focus.
The reason why PEPs must be a key part of any AML programme is clear. Instances of political graft and the subsequent methods for cleaning illicit funds are well known and often make the headlines. All companies, from large financial institutions to law firms or gaming companies, must seek to avoid potentially apocalyptic media scenarios, such as the recent Panama Papers scandal.