2011年-IMF国际货币组织全球_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands_334页_3mb

报告摘要

Summary of the Detailed Assessment Report on AML/CFT for the Netherlands

Core Content

The Detailed Assessment Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) for the Netherlands was prepared by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) using the FATF 2004 methodology. The report evaluates the Netherlands' legal and institutional framework, preventive measures, and compliance with FATF Recommendations and Special Recommendations. It also outlines areas for improvement and provides a rating of compliance and a recommended action plan.

Main Points and Key Findings

1. General Overview

The Netherlands is a large financial sector (7th in systemic importance globally), with open trade and a high volume of criminal proceeds.
It is the 16th largest economy by nominal GDP, with $14 billion in estimated domestic criminal proceeds (1.8% of GDP).
There is a limited terrorism and terrorist financing (TF) risk, mainly from international Islamic extremists.
The financial intelligence unit (FIU) is well-regarded and a founding member of the Egmont Group, but reorganization delays have impacted its operational independence and effectiveness.

2. Legal Framework and Institutional Measures

2.1 Money Laundering (ML) Criminalization

The Netherlands has fully criminalized ML in line with the Vienna and Palermo Conventions.
ML provisions apply to all FATF predicate offenses and any type of property.
However, information gaps prevent confirmation of the full effectiveness of ML provisions.

2.2 Terrorist Financing (TF) Criminalization

There is no autonomous TF offense in Dutch law.
TF is criminalized under "preparation to commit a serious crime" and "participation in a terrorist organization", which falls short of FATF standards.
This framework is inadequate for covering all TF scenarios, especially those under UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) and FATF conventions.

2.3 Confiscation, Freezing, and Seizure of Proceeds of Crime

The Netherlands has a comprehensive legal framework for confiscating criminal proceeds.
However, lack of detailed statistics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of these measures.

2.4 Freezing of Funds for Terrorist Financing

The Netherlands has a strong framework for freezing funds under UNSCR 1267 and 1373.
Concerns remain about the timeliness of freezing actions in practice, especially in non-EU countries.

2.5 Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)

The FIU-Netherlands is a long-standing and respected institution.
Reorganization delays have eroded its independence and effectiveness.
A new governance model was agreed in September 2010, but it is complex and needs streamlining.

2.6 Law Enforcement and Prosecution

The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) enables aggressive financial investigations.
However, legal privilege hinders the effectiveness of mutual legal assistance and asset recovery.

Preventive Measures

3. Financial Institutions

3.1 Risk-Based Approach

The Netherlands uses a risk-based approach for AML/CFT preventive measures, supported by a principles-based approach.
CDD (Customer Due Diligence) is required for financial institutions and DNFBPs.
CDD requirements are only applicable in high-risk scenarios, and no obligation exists to identify politically-exposed persons (PEPs).

3.2 Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR)

STR reporting is generally in place, but has effectiveness concerns.
The 14-day reporting period is not consistent with FATF standards.
STR reporting levels are low among insurance agents, life insurance companies, and bureaux de change.
Protection for reporters and prohibition of tipping off are not fully effective.

3.3 Internal Controls and Compliance

The Act on Financial Supervision (Wft) outlines internal control requirements.
Implementation is uneven, especially in complex areas like beneficial ownership verification.
Employee training and compliance officer roles need strengthening.

4. Designated Nonfinancial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs)

Preventive measures for DNFBPs are comparable to financial institutions.
Trust and company service providers (TCSPs) have more comprehensive measures.
STR reporting is low for precious metals dealers and lawyers, despite acknowledged risks.
Secrecy issues hinder supervision of lawyers.
Recent risk-based frameworks are expected to improve effectiveness.

Legal Persons and Non-Profit Organizations

The Netherlands has measures to ensure transparency in beneficial ownership, including registration with the Chamber of Commerce.
Notaries and trust service providers are supervised and involved in legal entity establishment.
Bearer shares are still allowed but dematerialization is expected to be fully implemented by 2013.
Non-profit organizations (NPOs) are transparent, with comprehensive information available through the Central Bureau for Fundraising (CBF) seal mechanism.

National and International Cooperation

There is no overarching law for mutual legal assistance (MLA), but the CPC provides a basis for cooperation.
MLA is not available for non-corruption predicate offenses, limiting the country's ability to assist in TF cases.
Legal privilege and dual criminality issues hinder international cooperation.
Information-sharing mechanisms are in place, but CBF is a private entity, which limits full cooperation.

Recommendations and Compliance

The compliance rating with FATF Recommendations is outlined in Table 1.
Recommendations for improvement are listed in Table 2, including:
- Strengthening STR reporting.
- Enhancing beneficial ownership verification.
- Improving legal privilege and dual criminality.
- Streamlining the FIU governance model.
- Enhancing employee training and compliance officer roles.
- Addressing secrecy issues in the legal profession.
- Expanding AML/CFT obligations to all financial institutions.

Conclusion

The Netherlands has a modern and comprehensive AML/CFT legal framework, but there are gaps in implementation and enforcement. Key areas for improvement include:

Strengthening STR reporting and beneficial ownership verification.
Addressing legal privilege and dual criminality in international cooperation.
Streamlining the FIU governance model.
Enhancing supervision of DNFBPs and nonfinancial sectors.
Ensuring full compliance with FATF standards for terrorist financing.