Spain

Member since 1990

Since its mutual evaluation in 2014, Spain has worked to improve the effectiveness of its national framework to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. To reflect this progress, the FATF re-rated Spain on three Recommendations in 2018 and the country is now compliant or largely compliant on 38 of the 40 Recommendations.

In 2019, the FATF conducted a follow-up assessment that looked at the effectiveness of Spain’s measures on three issues, or ‘Immediate outcomes’. To reflect the country’s progress, the FATF has re-rated Spain on two of these immediate outcomes. 

  • Preventive Measures (Immediate Outcome 4)
  • PF Financial Sanctions (Immediate Outcome 11)

Spain is now achieving high or substantial levels of effectiveness on 10 of the 11 key areas identified by the FATF as Immediate Outcomes of an effective framework to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

Mutual Evaluation of Spain - 2014

5 Dec 2014

The assessment of Spain is the first assessment to be completed using the 2012 FATF Recommendations, and the first country to undergo a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of its measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. 

Spain has a strong system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, with up-to-date laws and regulations and sound institutions for combating these threats.  Certain key areas need improvements, such as the implementation of targeted financial sanctions to allow the freezing of terrorism-related assets and the terms of imprisonment for money laundering convictions, which are currently too low. 

Read more
Mutual Evaluation of Spain - 2014

Ratings

Technical Compliance

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

Spain Follow-Up Assessment - 2019

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

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.

Spain Follow-Up Assessment - 2019

IO1
SE
IO2
SE
IO3
SE
IO4
SE
IO5
SE
IO6
HE
IO7
SE
IO8
SE
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

Since the assessment of the effectiveness of Belgium's measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing in 2015, the country has been in an enhanced follow-up process.  The country reported back to the FATF in 2018 on the actions it had taken to strengthen its AML/CFT framework.  As a result of this report, the FATF rerated the country on 13 of the 40 Recommendations.  

Today, the country is compliant with 21 Recommendations, largely compliant with another 16 Recommendations, but remains partially compliant with 3 FATF Recommendations. 

Other related content 

Head of delegation

Lead Ministry/Authority in the FATF Delegation

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation

Others Ministries/Authorities

Ministry of Interior

Ministry of justice

Money Laundering Prevention Commission (SEPBLAC) [Financial Intelligence Unit] 

Observer

One of the Co-operating and Supporting Nations (COSUNs) of

 

Head of delegation

Also member of

In 2015, the FATF assessed the effectiveness of Belgium's measures to combat money laundering and their compliance with FATF Recommendation.  The report concluded that Belgium regime for combatting money laundering and terrorist financing is well established but that certain elements are not yet fully in line with the 2012 FATF Recommendations. 

The Mutual Evaluation Report of Australia, noted that Belgium has established a system for assessing the money laundering and terrorist financing risks. It uses an understanding of these risks as a basis for developing AML/CFT activities and has done so for a number of years. Understanding of risk and the implementation of AML/CFT measures and controls varies per sector however. Some sectors, such as the financial sector, are much stronger in taking appropriate action to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, while some money value transfer service providers do not have a full understanding or a complete implementation of AML/CFT measures. The non-financial sector has improved its commitment to AML/CFT; however, certain relevant businesses and professions, such professions as lawyers and casinos, have not yet taken action. Implementation of AML/CFT measures by diamond dealers does not appear to be adequate in relation to the high-risk identified for the sector.

Following this mutual evaluation, Belgium will is reporting back regularly about the progress it has made in addressing the techical compliance deficiencies and the FATF may rerate the country to reflect this progress.   However, this follow-up process does not focus on effectiveness. The effectiveness of Australia's actions to combat money laundering and terrorist financing will be assessed in the 5th round of mutual evaluations.