2011年-IMF国际货币组织全球_India_Report_on_Observance_of_Standards_and_CodesFATF_Recommendations_for_Anti_26页_837kb

Summary of India's FATF AML/CFT Compliance Report (2010)

Introduction

This report, prepared by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), assesses India's compliance with the FATF Recommendations for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (CFT). It provides an overview of the legal and institutional framework in place as of the on-site visit (30 November – 12 December 2009) and shortly after, highlighting areas of strength and concern. The views expressed are those of the FATF and not necessarily those of the Government of India or the IMF.

Core Content and Main Findings

AML/CFT Regime in India

• India's AML/CFT regime is relatively new, with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, coming into force in 2005 and amended in 2009.
• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, was amended in 2004 and 2008 to criminalise terrorist financing.
• India has made efforts to align its AML/CFT laws with FATF standards, particularly with the addition of Schedule C to cover cross-border implications.

Money Laundering Risks and Methods

• India faces significant money laundering and terrorist financing risks due to its growing economy and demography.
• Key sources of money laundering include drug trafficking, fraud, currency counterfeiting, transnational organised crime, human trafficking, and corruption.
• Common ML methods include multiple bank accounts, intermingling criminal proceeds with legal assets, purchasing cheques against cash, and complex legal structures.
• For transnational crimes, offshore corporations and trade-based money laundering are used to disguise the origin of funds.

Terrorist Financing Risks

• India is a target for terrorist groups and has experienced numerous attacks.
• Major sources of terrorist financing include funds from foreign non-profit organisations (NPOs), currency counterfeiting, and criminal activities such as drug trafficking and extortion.
• Despite legal frameworks, there are no published figures on the number of terrorist cells operating in India.

Legal and Institutional Framework

• India has criminalised money laundering under PMLA and NDPS Act, with PMLA covering a broader range of predicate offences.
• The UAPA has been used to criminalise terrorist financing, but technical deficiencies exist in its alignment with FATF standards.
• The Financial Intelligence Unit – India (FIU-IND), established in 2004 and operational since 2006, is responsible for handling suspicious transaction reports (STRs) and coordinating with intelligence agencies.

Preventive Measures and Compliance

Financial Sector Compliance

• India has implemented preventive measures for AML/CFT through PMLA and PML Rules.
• The PMLA applies to all but one of the financial activities required by FATF standards, but not all DNFBPs (non-financial businesses and professions) are covered, except for casinos in Goa.
• The PML Rules provide for customer due diligence (CDD), record-keeping, and reporting requirements, though some areas require further clarification.

Key Concerns and Issues

• Beneficial Ownership: No clear definition is provided in the PML Rules or circulars, creating ambiguity.
• Identification Documents: Reliance on official ID documents raises concerns about their reliability.
• Pooled Accounts: Common in professional sectors, but strict secrecy provisions prevent disclosure of beneficial owners.
• PEPs (Politically Exposed Persons): Different sectors have inconsistent obligations, leading to a lack of common understanding across the financial industry.
• Non-Face-to-Face Transactions: Lack of specific guidance on handling such transactions, despite the existence of remote account-opening options.
• STR Reporting: Despite the legal framework, STR filings remain low, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the reporting regime.
• Convictions and Case Law: There are no ML convictions, which affects the development of case law and the perception of effectiveness.

Recommendations

To strengthen India's AML/CFT system, the FATF recommends:

• Addressing technical shortcomings in the criminalisation of money laundering and terrorist financing.
• Improving the legal framework for confiscation and provisional measures.
• Enhancing the reliability of identification documents and clarifying beneficial ownership definitions.
• Ensuring effective implementation of CDD obligations, especially for PEPs and non-face-to-face transactions.
• Strengthening the STR reporting regime and improving its effectiveness.
• Ensuring that India Post, which was recently brought under PMLA, is adequately supervised and compliant.
• Extending PMLA requirements to all DNFBPs and ensuring effective regulation and supervision.
• Updating the sanctioning regime to allow for effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties for non-compliance.

Conclusion

India has made progress in establishing AML/CFT legal and institutional frameworks, but there are still significant gaps in implementation and effectiveness. The lack of ML convictions, inconsistent CDD obligations, and low STR filings indicate the need for further reforms to align with international standards and enhance the country's capacity to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The FATF encourages continued efforts and improvements in legal clarity, institutional coordination, and enforcement mechanisms.