(AML-CFT Decision Article 15)

Due to their potential ability to influence government policies, determine the outcome of public funding or procurement decisions, or obtain access to public funds, politically exposed persons (PEPs) are classified as high-risk individuals from an AML/CFT perspective. The AML-CFT Law and the AML-CFT Decision define PEPs as:

FIs are obliged to put in place appropriate risk management systems to determine whether a customer, Beneficial Owner, beneficiary, or controlling person is a PEP. In addition to undertaking standard CDD procedures, FIs are also required to take reasonable measures to establish the source of funds and the source of wealth of customers and Beneficial Owners identified as PEPs. In this regard, and commensurate with the nature and size of their businesses, FIs should take measures that include:

If a customer, Beneficial Owner, beneficiary, or controlling person is identified as a PEP, FIs are required to take reasonable measures to establish the PEP’s source of funds and source of wealth. In this regard, they should also evaluate the legitimacy of the source of funds and source of wealth, including making reasonable investigations into the individual’s professional and financial background.

Furthermore, FIs are also required to obtain senior management approval before establishing a Business Relationship with a PEP, or before continuing an existing one. In regard to the latter, senior management should be notified and their approval should be obtained for the continuance of a PEP relationship each time any of the following situations occur:

With regard to identified Domestic PEPs and individuals who were previously (but are no longer) entrusted with prominent functions at international organisations, the AML-CFT Decision provides that FIs should implement the measures described above when, apart from their PEP status, the Business Relationships associated with such persons could be classified as high-risk for any other reason.

The handling of a customer who is no longer entrusted with a prominent public function should be based on an assessment of risk. This risk based approach requires that FIs assess the ML/FT risk of a PEP who is no longer entrusted with a prominent public function, and take effective action to mitigate this risk. Possible risk factors are the level of (informal) influence that the individual could still exercise; the seniority of the position that the individual held as a PEP; or whether the individual’s previous and current function are linked in any way (e.g., formally by appointment of the PEPs successor, or informally by the fact that the PEP continues to deal with the same substantive matters).

(AML-CFT Decision Article 4.2(b))

FIs are obliged to apply EDD measures to manage and mitigate the risks associated with identified High Risk Customers and/or transactions. The AML-CFT Decision defines a High Risk Customers as including those who represent a risk:

Examples of the EDD measures that should be taken by FIs are laid out in the relevant article of the AML-CFT Decision. When carrying out such measures (especially as regards obtaining and investigating more information about the nature of the customer’s business, purpose of the Business Relationship, or reason for the transaction), FIs should pay particular attention to the reasonableness of the information obtained, and should evaluate it for possible inconsistencies and for potentially unusual or suspicious circumstances. Examples of factors that FIs should take into consideration in this regard include, but are not limited to:

Additionally, and commensurate with the nature and size of their businesses, when carrying out EDD measures in respect of High Risk Customers or Beneficial Owners, FIs should take appropriate risk-mitigation measures such as, but not limited to:

(AML-CFT Law Article 16.1(e); AML-CFT Decision Article 22, 44.7, 60)

FIs are obliged to implement EDD measures commensurate with the ML/FT risks associated with Business Relationships and transactions with customers from high-risk countries subject to a Call for Action and Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring and the countries identified by NAMLCFTFC. In the case of legal persons and arrangements, their Beneficial Owners, beneficiaries and other controlling persons from high-risk countries.

FIs can obtain guidance on high risk countries from NAMLCFTFC, from the FATF list of High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action and Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring, and from NRA report. In addition, reference can also be made to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) list of jurisdictions classified as tax havens. The Basel AML index can be a useful source to determine the risk of a country.

Examples of some of the measures FIs should apply in this regard include:

Additionally, FIs are obliged to implement all specific CDD measures and countermeasures regarding High Risk Countries as defined by the National Committee for Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Illegal Organisations, including those related to the implementation of the decisions of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and other related directives, and those called for by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and/or other FSRBs.

In order to fulfil these obligations, and commensurate with the nature and size of their businesses and the risks involved, FIs should establish adequate internal policies, procedures and controls in relation to the application of EDD measures and risk-proportionate effective countermeasures to customers and Business Relationships associated with high-risk countries. Some of the factors to which FIs should give consideration when formulating such policies, procedures and controls, include but are not limited to the following:

For all countries identified as high-risk, the FATF calls on all members and urges all jurisdictions to apply EDD, and in the most serious cases, countries are called upon to apply countermeasures to protect the international financial system from the ongoing money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing risks emanating from the country. However, specific countermeasures which need to be applied by FIs shall be advised by the corresponding supervisory authorities, the FIU or the NAMLCFTC.

(AML-CFT Decision 25)

Financial Institutions are obliged to fulfil certain due diligence requirements with regard to the correspondent banking relationships and other similar relationships they maintain, regardless of whether these involve foreign or domestic financial institutions. Additional guidance in respect of the measures specified in the relevant article of the AML-CFT Decision is provided below. Similar relationships to which FIs should apply the guidance below include, for example those established for securities transactions or funds transfers.

FIs are prohibited from entering into or maintaining correspondent relationships with shell banks, or with institutions that allow their accounts to be used by shell banks. The AML-CFT Decision defines a shell bank as a “bank that has no physical presence in the country in which it is incorporated and licensed, and is unaffiliated with a regulated financial group that is subject to effective consolidated supervision.”

Regulatory and supervisory environments governing the operation of financial institutions around the world vary greatly. Thus, not all foreign financial institutions are subject to the same AML/CFT requirements as FIs in the UAE; and as a consequence, some of these foreign institutions may pose a higher ML/FT risk. To mitigate against these risks, FIs that maintain correspondent relationships with foreign financial institutions should consider implementing adequate procedures to assess and periodically review the relevant regulatory and supervisory frameworks of the countries concerned.

Furthermore, when gathering information about financial institutions with which they maintain correspondent relationships, whether foreign or domestic, FIs should take appropriate steps to assess the nature, size and extent of their businesses in the countries where they are incorporated and licensed, as well as their ownership and management structures (taking into consideration the nature and extent of any PEP involvement), in order to evaluate whether they exhibit the characteristics of shell banks, and whether they offer downstream correspondent services (also known as “nested accounts”) to other banks. If they do offer downstream correspondent services, FIs should also take reasonable steps to understand the types of services offered, the number and types of financial institutions they are offered to, the types of customers those institutions serve, and to identify the associated ML/FT risk issues.

In order to collect sufficient information about the nature of a financial institution and the AML/CFT controls it applies, and to assess the ML/FT risks associated with it, FIs should take appropriate measures such as implementing a suitable correspondent relationships questionnaire and, when necessary, conducting follow-up interviews. (FIs may find the correspondent banking questionnaire which has been developed by the Wolfsberg Group, as well as the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, instructive in this regard. See Appendix 11.2, Useful Links.)

In addition to obtaining senior management approval prior to establishing new correspondent relationships, FIs should also periodically review and update their due diligence information in relation to the financial institutions with which they maintain correspondent relationships, commensurate with the risks involved (see 6.3.6 Reviewing and Updating the Customer Due Diligence Information). In the event of a deterioration in the risk profile of a financial institution with which a correspondent relationship is maintained, including the discovery of material adverse information concerning the institution, FIs should ensure that senior management is informed and appropriate risk-based measures are taken to assess and mitigate the ML/FT risks involved.

FIs should also maintain agreements or contracts with financial institutions with which they maintain correspondent relationships. In addition to operational details concerning the products and services covered, these agreements should clearly describe each party’s responsibilities in regard to ML/FT risk mitigation, due diligence procedures, and the detailed conditions related to any permitted third-party usage of the correspondent account.

(AML-CFT Decision Articles 26, 30)

As part of a risk-based AML/CFT approach, FIs that enter into or maintain Business Relationships with Money or Value Transfer Services (MVTSs) should take adequate CDD measures that are commensurate with the risks involved (see Sections 6.3, Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Measures and 6.4, Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) Measures). Examples of measures that FIs should consider in this regard include, but are not limited to:

FIs that enter into or maintain relationships with MTVSs should also use a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate internal AML/CFT policies, procedures and controls FIs implement in relation to the risk assessment, risk classification, and the type and extent of CDD they perform on the MVTSs. The policies and procedures that FIs apply should be reasonable and proportionate to the risks involved, and should be adequately documented, senior management approved, and communicated to the relevant employees of the organisation.

Non-Profit Organisations (NPOs) can often pose increased risks in regard to money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and the financing of illegal organisations. As part of an effective risk-based approach to AML/CFT, FIs that enter into or maintain Business Relationships with NPOs should take adequate CDD measures that are commensurate with the risks involved (see Sections 6.3, Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Measures and 6.4, Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) Measures). Examples of measures that FIs should consider include, but are not limited to:

FIs that enter into or maintain relationships with NPOs should also use a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate internal AML/CFT policies, procedures and controls the FIs implement in relation to the risk assessment, risk classification, and the type and extent of CDD they perform on NPOs. The policies and procedures that FIs apply should be reasonable and proportionate to the risks involved, and should be adequately documented, senior management approved, and communicated to the relevant employees of the organisation.