United States' measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing

Publication details

Language

English

Country

United States

Mutual Evaluation of the United States - 2016

Filename
MER-United-States-2016.pdf
Size
2 MB
Format
application/pdf
Download

Paris, 1 December 2016 - The United States has a well-developed and robust anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regime through which it is effectively investigating and prosecuting money laundering and terrorist financing. However, the system has serious gaps that impede timely access to beneficial ownership information.

The FATF and the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) conducted a Mutual Evaluation of the United States.

The U.S. dollar’s global dominance and the large volumes of daily transactions through its banks expose the U.S. to substantial money laundering risks. It also faces significant terrorist financing risks due to the unique openness and global reach of its financial system, and the direct threat terrorist groups pose to U.S. interests. The U.S. has a significant level of understanding of these risks.

Terrorism and its financing have the highest priority, and the U.S. is highly effective in this area. It proactively and aggressively investigates, prosecutes and convicts individuals for terrorist financing and can capture any form of material support. The U.S. appears to have kept terrorist funds out of its financial system to a large extent by effectively implementing targeted financial sanctions. Proliferation financing is also a high priority for the U.S. and it has effectively frozen large volumes of assets through its sanctions programs.

The U.S. aggressively pursues high-value confiscation and has been very effective, as the considerable value of confiscations each year demonstrates (over USD 4.4 billion in 2014).

National coordination and cooperation on AML/CFT issues has improved significantly since the last evaluation, in particular on counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation and related financing issues. The federal law enforcement agencies make good use of their extensive  investigation capabilities and intelligence. Authorities pursue a wide variety of money laundering activity, in particular complex and high-dollar value criminal offences, resulting in over 1 200 money laundering convictions per year.

The U.S. also has a substantially effective system for international cooperation, and provides good quality and constructive mutual legal assistance and extradition.

Risk mitigation through  the regulatory framework is less well-developed and has some significant gaps, including minimal coverage of investment advisers, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, trust and company service providers (other than trust companies).

AML/CFT supervision of the banking and securities sectors appears to be robust as a whole. The U.S. has a range of sanctions and dissuasive remedial measures that it can and does impose on financial institutions. However, while the U.S. placed a strong supervisory focus on the casino sector in recent years, the lack of comprehensive AML/CFT supervision for other designated non-financial businesses and professions is a significant supervisory gap. The Federal authorities have a good understanding of the risks of complex structures of legal persons and arrangements being used to hide ownership and launder money. However, serious gaps in the legal framework prevent access to accurate beneficial ownership information in a timely manner. Fundamental improvements are needed in these areas.

This report was adopted by the FATF at its October 2016 Plenary meeting (see: Outcomes of the Plenary meeting of the FATF, Paris, 19-21 October 2016).

 

 

 

 

Technical Compliance

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

United States - Mutual Evaluation 2016

R.1 - Assessing risk & applying risk-based approach
PC
R.2 - National cooperation and coordination
C
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
C
R.10 - Customer due diligence
PC
R.11 - Record keeping
LC
R.12 - Politically exposed persons
PC
R.13 - Correspondent banking
LC
R.14 - Money or value transfer services
LC
R.15 - New technologies
LC
R.16 - Wire transfers
PC
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
PC
R.21 - Tipping-off and confidentiality
C
R.22 - DNFBPs: Customer due diligence
NC
R.23 - DNFBPs: Other measures
NC
R.24 - Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons
NC
R.25 - Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal arrangements
PC
R.26 - Regulation and supervision of financial institutions
LC
R.27 - Powers of supervisors
C
R.28 - Regulation and supervision of DNFBPs
NC
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
LC
R.32 - Cash couriers
C
R.33 - Statistics
LC
R.34 - Guidance and feedback
LC
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
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.

United States - Mutual Evaluation 2016

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

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

Related materials

The FATF Recommendations

The FATF Recommendations are the basis on which all countries should meet the shared objective of tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation. The FATF calls upon all countries to effectively implement these measures in their national systems.
Read more

Mutual Evaluations

The FATF conducts peer reviews of each member on an ongoing basis to assess levels of implementation of the FATF Recommendations, providing an in-depth description and analysis of each country’s system for preventing criminal abuse of the financial system
Read more Consolidated assessment ratings
ESAAMLG Logo

The 2022 and 2013 Methodologies for Assessing Technical Compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the Effectiveness of AML/CFT/CPF Systems

These documents are guides intended for use by assessors who are tasked with conducting a mutual evaluation. They provide a structured framework of analysis that ensures a level of consistency and high quality of the mutual evaluation reports produced. Latest update: August 2024
Read more