printable banner

U.S. Department of State - Great Seal

U.S. Department of State

Diplomacy in Action

Major Money Laundering Countries


International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
March 2008
Report
Share

Every year, U.S. officials from agencies with anti-money laundering responsibilities meet to assess the money laundering situations in 200 jurisdictions. The review includes an assessment of the significance of financial transactions in the country’s financial institutions that involve proceeds of serious crime, steps taken or not taken to address financial crime and money laundering, each jurisdiction’s vulnerability to money laundering, the conformance of its laws and policies to international standards, the effectiveness with which the government has acted, and the government’s political will to take needed actions.

The 2008 INCSR assigned priorities to jurisdictions using a classification system consisting of three differential categories titled Jurisdictions of Primary Concern, Jurisdictions of Concern, and Other Jurisdictions Monitored.

The “Jurisdictions of Primary Concern” are those jurisdictions that are identified pursuant to the INCSR reporting requirements as “major money laundering countries.” A major money laundering country is defined by statute as one “whose financial institutions engage in currency transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from international narcotics trafficking.” However, the complex nature of money laundering transactions today makes it difficult in many cases to distinguish the proceeds of narcotics trafficking from the proceeds of other serious crime. Moreover, financial institutions engaging in transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds of other serious crime are vulnerable to narcotics-related money laundering. The category “Jurisdiction of Primary Concern” recognizes this relationship by including all countries and other jurisdictions whose financial institutions engage in transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from all serious crime. Thus, the focus of analysis in considering whether a country or jurisdiction should be included in this category is on the significance of the amount of proceeds laundered, not of the anti-money laundering measures taken. This is a different approach taken than that of the FATF Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories (NCCT) exercise, which focuses on a jurisdiction’s compliance with stated criteria regarding its legal and regulatory framework, international cooperation, and resource allocations.

All other countries and jurisdictions evaluated in the INCSR are separated into the two remaining groups, “Jurisdictions of Concern” and “Other Jurisdictions Monitored,” on the basis of a number of factors that may include: (1) whether the country’s financial institutions engage in transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from serious crime; (2) the extent to which the jurisdiction is or remains vulnerable to money laundering, notwithstanding its money laundering countermeasures, if any (an illustrative list of factors that may indicate vulnerability is provided below); (3) the nature and extent of the money laundering situation in each jurisdiction (for example, whether it involves drugs or other contraband); (4) the ways in which the United States regards the situation as having international ramifications; (5) the situation’s impact on U.S. interests; (6) whether the jurisdiction has taken appropriate legislative actions to address specific problems; (7) whether there is a lack of licensing and oversight of offshore financial centers and businesses; (8) whether the jurisdiction’s laws are being effectively implemented; and (9) where U.S. interests are involved, the degree of cooperation between the foreign government and U.S. government agencies. Additionally, given concerns about the increasing interrelationship between inadequate money laundering legislation and terrorist financing, terrorist financing is an additional factor considered in making a determination as to whether a country should be considered an “Other Jurisdiction Monitored “ or a “Jurisdiction of Concern.” A government (e.g., the United States or the United Kingdom) can have comprehensive anti-money laundering laws on its books and conduct aggressive anti-money laundering enforcement efforts but still be classified a “Primary Concern” jurisdiction. In some cases, this classification may simply or largely be a function of the size of the jurisdiction’s economy. In such jurisdictions quick, continuous, and effective anti-money laundering efforts by the government are critical. While the actual money laundering problem in jurisdictions classified “Concern” is not as acute, they too must undertake efforts to develop or enhance their anti-money laundering regimes. Finally, while jurisdictions in the “Other” category do not pose an immediate concern, it will nevertheless be important to monitor their money laundering situations because, under certain circumstances, virtually any jurisdiction of any size can develop into a significant money laundering center.

Vulnerability Factors

The current ability of money launderers to penetrate virtually any financial system makes every jurisdiction a potential money laundering center. There is no precise measure of vulnerability for any financial system, and not every vulnerable financial system will, in fact, be host to large volumes of laundered proceeds, but a checklist of what drug money managers reportedly look for provides a basic guide. The checklist includes:

  • Failure to criminalize money laundering for all serious crimes or limiting the offense to narrow predicates.

  • Rigid bank secrecy rules that obstruct law enforcement investigations or that prohibit or inhibit large value and/or suspicious or unusual transaction reporting by both banks and nonbank financial institutions.

  • Lack of or inadequate “know-your-client” requirements to open accounts or conduct financial transactions, including the permitted use of anonymous, nominee, numbered, or trustee accounts.

  • No requirement to disclose the beneficial owner of an account or the true beneficiary of a transaction.

  • Lack of effective monitoring of cross-border currency movements.

  • No reporting requirements for large cash transactions.

  • No requirement to maintain financial records over a specific period of time.

  • No mandatory requirement to report suspicious transactions or a pattern of inconsistent reporting under a voluntary system; lack of uniform guidelines for identifying suspicious transactions.

  • Use of bearer monetary instruments.

  • Well-established nonbank financial systems, especially where regulation, supervision, and monitoring are absent or lax.

  • Patterns of evasion of exchange controls by legitimate businesses.

  • Ease of incorporation, in particular where ownership can be held through nominees or bearer shares, or where off-the-shelf corporations can be acquired.

  • No central reporting unit for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating to the competent authorities information on large value or suspicious or unusual financial transactions that might identify possible money laundering activity.

  • Lack of or weak bank regulatory controls, or failure to adopt or adhere to Basel Committee’s “Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision,” especially in jurisdictions where the monetary or bank supervisory authority is understaffed, under skilled, or uncommitted.

  • Well-established offshore financial centers or tax-haven banking systems, especially jurisdictions where such banks and accounts can be readily established with minimal background investigations.

  • Extensive foreign banking operations, especially where there is significant wire transfer activity or multiple branches of foreign banks, or limited audit authority over foreign-owned banks or institutions.

  • Jurisdictions where charitable organizations or alternate remittance systems, because of their unregulated and unsupervised nature, are used as avenues for money laundering or terrorist financing.

  • Limited asset seizure or confiscation authority.

  • Limited narcotics, money laundering and financial crime enforcement, and lack of trained investigators or regulators.

  • Jurisdictions with free trade zones where there is little government presence or other supervisory authority.

  • Patterns of official corruption or a laissez-faire attitude toward the business and banking communities.

  • Jurisdictions where the U.S. dollar is readily accepted, especially jurisdictions where banks and other financial institutions allow dollar deposits.

  • Well-established access to international bullion trading centers in New York, Istanbul, Zurich, Dubai and Mumbai.

  • Jurisdictions where there is significant trade in or export of gold, diamonds, and other gems.

  • Jurisdictions with large parallel or black market economies.

  • Limited or no ability to share financial information with foreign law enforcement authorities.

Changes in INCSR Priorities for 2007

Jurisdictions moving from the Primary Concern column to the Concern column: Bosnia and Herzegovina and St. Kitts & Nevis.

Jurisdictions moving from the Other/Monitored column to the Concern column: Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, and Suriname.

In the Country/Jurisdiction Table on the following page, “major money laundering countries” that are in the “Jurisdictions of Primary Concern” column are identified for purposes of statutory INCSR reporting requirements. Identification as a “major money laundering country” is based on whether the country or jurisdiction’s financial institutions engage in transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from serious crime. It is not based on an assessment of the country or jurisdiction’s legal framework to combat money laundering; its role in the terrorist financing problem; or the degree of its cooperation in the international fight against money laundering, including terrorist financing. These factors, however, are included among the vulnerability factors when deciding whether to place a country in the “concern” or “other” column. This year, the movement of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Primary Concern Column to the Concern Column was based on the absence of significant money laundering, not on its continued vulnerability to terrorist financing.

Note: Country reports are provided for only those countries listed in Primary Concern column and the Concern column.

Country/Jurisdiction Table

Countries/Jurisdictions 
of Primary Concern

Countries/Jurisdictions 
of Concern

Other Countries/Jurisdictions Monitored

           

Afghanistan

Philippines

Albania

Nicaragua

Andorra

Marshall Islands

Antigua and Barbuda

Russia

Algeria

Palau

Anguilla

Mauritania

Australia

Singapore

Angola

Peru

Armenia

Mauritius

Austria

Spain

Argentina

Poland

Azerbaijan

Micronesia FS

Bahamas

Switzerland

Aruba

Portugal

Benin

Mongolia

Belize

Taiwan

Bahrain

Qatar

Bermuda

Montenegro

Brazil

Thailand

Bangladesh

Romania

Botswana

Montserrat

Burma

Turkey

Barbados

Samoa

Brunei

Mozambique

Cambodia

Ukraine

Belarus

Saudi Arabia

Burkina Faso

Namibia

Canada

United Arab Emirates

Belgium

Senegal

Burundi

Nauru

Cayman Islands

United Kingdom

Bolivia

Serbia

Cameroon

Nepal

China, People Rep

United States

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Seychelles

Cape Verde

New Zealand

Colombia

Uruguay

British Virgin Islands

Sierra Leone

Central African Republic

Niger

Costa Rica

Venezuela

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Chad

Niue

Cyprus

 

Chile

South Africa

Congo, Dem Rep of

Norway

Dominican Republic

 

Comoros

St. Kitts & Nevis

Congo, Rep of

Oman

France

 

Cook Islands

St. Lucia

Croatia

Papua New Guinea

Germany

 

Cote d’Ivoire

St. Vincent

Cuba

Rwanda

Greece

 

Czech Rep

Suriname

Denmark

San Marino

Guatemala

 

Dominica

Syria

Djibouti

Sao Tome & Principe

Guernsey

 

Ecuador

Tanzania

East Timor

Slovenia

Haiti

 

Egypt

Turks and Caicos

Equatorial Guinea

Solomon Islands

Hong Kong

 

El Salvador

Uzbekistan

Eritrea

Sri Lanka

India

 

Ghana

Vanuatu

Estonia

Swaziland

Indonesia

 

Gibraltar

Vietnam

Ethiopia

Sweden

Iran

 

Grenada

Yemen

Fiji

Tajikistan

Isle of Man

 

Guinea-Bissau

Zimbabwe

Finland

Togo

Israel

 

Guyana

 

Gabon

Tonga

Italy

 

Honduras

 

Gambia

Trinida and Tobago

Japan

 

Hungary

 

Georgia

Tunisia

Jersey

  

Iraq

 

Guinea

Turkmenistan

Kenya

   

Ireland

 

Iceland

Uganda

Latvia

   

Jamaica

   

Kazakhstan

 Zambia

Lebanon

   

Jordan

   

Kyrgyz Republic

  

Liechtenstein

   

Korea, North

   

Lesotho

  

Luxembourg

  

Korea, South

  

Liberia

 

Macau

   

Kuwait

 

Lithuania

 

Mexico

   

Laos

 

Macedonia

 

Netherlands

 

Malaysia

 

Madagascar

 

Nigeria

 

Moldova

 

Malawi

   

Pakistan

 

Monaco

 

Maldives

   

Panama

 

Morocco

 

Mali

 

Paraguay

 

Netherlands Antilles

 

Malta

 


Introduction to Comparative Table

The comparative table that follows the Glossary of Terms below identifies the broad range of actions, effective as of December 31, 2007 that jurisdictions have, or have not, taken to combat money laundering. This reference table provides a comparison of elements that define legislative activity and identify other characteristics that can have a relationship to money laundering vulnerability.

Glossary of Terms

  1. “Criminalized Drug Money Laundering”: The jurisdiction has enacted laws criminalizing the offense of money laundering related to drug trafficking.

  2. “Criminalized Beyond Drugs”: The jurisdiction has extended anti-money laundering statutes and regulations to include nondrug-related money laundering.

  3. “Record Large Transactions”: By law or regulation, banks are required to maintain records of large transactions in currency or other monetary instruments.

  4. “Maintain Records Over Time”: By law or regulation, banks are required to keep records, especially of large or unusual transactions, for a specified period of time, e.g., five years.

  5. “Report Suspicious Transactions”: By law or regulation, banks are required to record and report suspicious or unusual transactions to designated authorities. On the Comparative Table the letter “M” signifies mandatory reporting; “P” signifies permissible reporting.

  6. “Financial Intelligence Unit”: The jurisdiction has established an operative central, national agency responsible for receiving (and, as permitted, requesting), analyzing, and disseminating to the competent authorities disclosures of financial information concerning suspected proceeds of crime, or required by national legislation or regulation, to counter money laundering. These reflect those jurisdictions that are members of the Egmont Group.

  7. “System for Identifying and Forfeiting Assets”: The jurisdiction has enacted laws authorizing the tracing, freezing, seizure and forfeiture of assets identified as relating to or generated by money laundering activities.

  8. “Arrangements for Asset Sharing”: By law, regulation, or bilateral agreement, the jurisdiction permits sharing of seized assets with third party jurisdictions which assisted in the conduct of the underlying investigation.

  9. “Cooperates w/International Law Enforcement”: By law or regulation, banks are permitted/required to cooperate with authorized investigations involving or initiated by third party jurisdictions, including sharing of records or other financial data.

  10. “International Transportation of Currency”: By law or regulation, the jurisdiction, in cooperation with banks, controls or monitors the flow of currency and monetary instruments crossing its borders. Of critical weight here are the presence or absence of wire transfer regulations and use of reports completed by each person transiting the jurisdiction and reports of monetary instrument transmitters.

  11. “Mutual Legal Assistance”: By law or through treaty, the jurisdiction has agreed to provide and receive mutual legal assistance, including the sharing of records and data.

  12. “Nonbank Financial Institutions”: By law or regulation, the jurisdiction requires nonbank financial institutions to meet the same customer identification standards and adhere to the same reporting requirements that it imposes on banks.

  13. “Disclosure Protection Safe Harbor”: By law, the jurisdiction provides a “safe harbor” defense to banks or other financial institutions and their employees who provide otherwise confidential banking data to authorities in pursuit of authorized investigations.

  14. “Criminalized the Financing of Terrorism.” The jurisdiction has criminalized the provision of material support to terrorists and/or terrorist organizations.

  15. “States Parties to 1988 UN Drug Convention”: As of December 31, 2007, a party to the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, or a territorial entity to which the application of the Convention has been extended by a party to the Convention.[1]

  16. “States Party to the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.” As of December 31, 2007, a party to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, or a territorial entity to which the application of the Convention has been extended by a party to the Convention.

 

____________________

[1] The United Kingdom extended its application of the 1988 Convention and the United Kingdom Terrorism Order 2001 to Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos, Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey. The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism has not yet been so extended.

Go to Comparative Chart

 



Back to Top
Sign-in

Do you already have an account on one of these sites? Click the logo to sign in and create your own customized State Department page. Want to learn more? Check out our FAQ!

OpenID is a service that allows you to sign in to many different websites using a single identity. Find out more about OpenID and how to get an OpenID-enabled account.