Denmark

Member since 1991

Since the 2017 assessment of Denmark’s measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing, and its 2018 and 2019 follow-up reports, the country has taken a number of actions to strengthen its framework.

Denmark has been in an enhanced follow-up process following the adoption of its mutual evaluation in 2017. In line with the FATF Procedures for mutual evaluations, the country has reported back to the FATF on the action it has taken since its last follow-up report, in November 2019.

Today, Denmark is compliant on 6 of the 40 Recommendations and largely compliant on 32 of them. It remains partially compliant on 2 Recommendations.

Denmark's progress in strengthening measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing

16 Feb 2021

This follow-up report analyses Denmark's progress in addressing the technical compliance deficiencies identified in its 2017 Mutual Evaluation and ensuing 2018 and 2019 Follow-Up Reports.
Read more 2019 Follow-up report 2018 Follow-up report

Head of delegation

Others Ministries/Authorities

Ministry of Justice

Denmark's official website 

 

Since the 2017 assessment of Denmark’s measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing, and its 2018 and 2019 follow-up reports, the country has taken a number of actions to strengthen its framework.

Denmark has been in an enhanced follow-up process following the adoption of its mutual evaluation in 2017. In line with the FATF Procedures for mutual evaluations, the country has reported back to the FATF on the action it has taken since its last follow-up report, in November 2019.

Today, Denmark is compliant on 6 of the 40 Recommendations and largely compliant on 32 of them. It remains partially compliant on 2 Recommendations.

Ratings

Technical Compliance

Ratings which reflect the extent to which a country has implemented the technical requirements of the FATF Recommendations.

Denmark Follow-Up Report - 2021

R.1 - Assessing risk & applying risk-based approach
LC
R.2 - National cooperation and coordination
LC
R.3 - Money laundering offence
LC
R.4 - Confiscation and provisional measures
LC
R.5 - Terrorist financing offence
C
R.6 - Targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism & terrorist financing
LC
R.7 - Targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation
LC
R.8 - Non-profit organisations
LC
R.9 - Financial institution secrecy laws
LC
R.10 - Customer due diligence
LC
R.11 - Record keeping
LC
R.12 - Politically exposed persons
C
R.13 - Correspondent banking
PC
R.14 - Money or value transfer services
LC
R.15 - New technologies
PC
R.16 - Wire transfers
LC
R.17 - Reliance on third parties
LC
R.18 - Internal controls and foreign branches and subsidiaries
LC
R.19 - Higher-risk countries
LC
R.20 - Reporting of suspicious transactions
C
R.21 - Tipping-off and confidentiality
C
R.22 - DNFBPs: Customer due diligence
LC
R.23 - DNFBPs: Other measures
LC
R.24 - Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons
LC
R.25 - Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal arrangements
LC
R.26 - Regulation and supervision of financial institutions
LC
R.27 - Powers of supervisors
LC
R.28 - Regulation and supervision of DNFBPs
LC
R.29 - Financial intelligence units
LC
R.30 - Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities
C
R.31 - Powers of law enforcement and investigative authorities
LC
R.32 - Cash couriers
LC
R.33 - Statistics
LC
R.34 - Guidance and feedback
C
R.35- Sanctions
LC
R.36 - International instruments
LC
R.37 - Mutual legal assistance
LC
R.38 - Mutual legal assistance: freezing and confiscation
LC
R.39 - Extradition
LC
R.40 - Other forms of international cooperation
LC

C = compliant   |   LC = largely compliant     |   PC = partially compliant   |   NC = non-compliant

Effectiveness

Ratings that reflect the extent to which a country's measures are effective. The assessment is conducted on the basis of 11 immediate outcomes, which represent key goals that an effective AML/CFT system should achieve.

Ratings that reflect the extent to which a country's measures are effective. The assessment is conducted on the basis of 11 immediate outcomes, which represent key goals that an effective AML/CFT system should achieve.

Denmark Mutual Evaluation 2017

IO1
ME
IO2
SE
IO3
LE
IO4
LE
IO5
ME
IO6
ME
IO7
ME
IO8
ME
IO9
SE
IO10
ME
IO11
SE

HE = high level of effectiveness   |   SE = substantial level of effectiveness    |   ME = moderate level of effectiveness   |   LE = low level of effectiveness

Other related content 

  • 16 Feb 2021

    Denmark's progress in strengthening measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing This follow-up report analyses Denmark's progress in addressing the technical compliance deficiencies identified in its 2017 Mutual Evaluation and ensuing 2018 and 2019 Follow-Up Reports.

  • 14 Nov 2019

    Denmark’s progress in strengthening measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing This follow report analyses Denmark's progress in addressing the technical compliance deficiencies identified in its 2017 Mutual Evaluation.

  • 21 Nov 2018

    Denmark’s progress in strengthening measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing This report analyses Denmark's progress in addressing the technical compliance deficiencies identified in the 2017 FATF assessment of the country's measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The report also looks at whether Denmark has implemented new measures to meet the requirements of FATF Recommendations that changed since the 2017 mutual evaluation.

  • 19 Oct 2018

    Outcomes FATF Plenary, 17-19 October 2018 Under the Presidency of Mr. Billingslea of the United States, delegates discussed among other issues: combating the financing of terrorism, the Mutual Evaluation of Israel and the United Kingdom, regulation of virtual assets.

  • 7 Aug 2017

    Denmark’s measures to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation Denmark has the foundations for a sound regime to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing, but needs to improve the implementation of measures to mitigate the risks, including through better assessing those risks and enhancing national policy coordination.

  • 23 Jun 2017

    Outcomes of the Plenary meeting of the FATF, Valencia, 21-23 June 2017 Under the Spanish Presidency of Mr. Vega-Serrano, delegates discussed the global response to terrorist financing, improving transparency and beneficial ownership, and the mutual evaluation reports of Denmark and Ireland, and issued a statement on Brazil.

  • 25 Jun 2011

    Outcomes of the FATF Plenary meeting, Amsterdam, 23-25 June 2010 The Chairman's summary provides an overview of the major outcomes of the Plenary, during which India became a full member of the FATF and the mutual evaluations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, India and Brazil were approved.

  • 22 Oct 2010

    Follow-up Report to the Mutual Evaluation of Denmark This follow-up report provides an overview of the main changes made to the AML/CFT system in the Kingdom of Denmark since the adoption of their mutual evaluation report in June 2006. In October 2010, the FATF recognised that the Kingdom of Denmark had made significant progress in addressing deficiencies identified in their mutual evaluation report and decided that the country should be removed from the regular follow-up process.

  • 22 Oct 2010

    Outcomes of the FATF Plenary meeting, Paris, 20-22 October 2010 The Chairman's summary provides an overview of the major outcomes of the meeting of the FATF Plenary, during which the mutual evaluation of Argentina was approved, as well as follow-up reports of the Kingdom of Denmark, Spain and Sweden. The FATF Plenary also provided an update on AML/CFT improvements in Qatar and Azerbaijan

  • 22 Sep 2006

    Mutual Evaluation of Denmark The report describes and analyses the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT laws, regulations and other measures that have been put in place by Denmark. This assessment is based on the 40+9 Recommendations and ratings of compliance have been made according to the four levels of compliance mentioned in the 2004 Methodology.