Working Together
Back Matter

Back Matter

Author(s):
International Monetary Fund
Published Date:
June 2007
    Share
    • ShareShare
    Show Summary Details
    Appendix A Tables
    Table A.18.1.Mechanisms Used for Information Exchange, by Usefulness (Questions 2 and 3)

    (Mechanisms rated from 0 = not important to 100 = most important1)

    DomesticallyInternationally
    Legally
    binding
    arrangements2
    Memoranda
    of
    understanding
    Letters of
    commitment
    Ad hoc
    contacts
    OtherLegally
    binding
    arrangements2
    Memoranda
    of
    understanding
    Letters of
    commitment
    Ad hoc
    contacts
    Other
    Total countries6048962194367175316
    Total IOFCs60481273185560205516
    Total non IOFCs6048755203672155316
    Advanced5947856234773194619
    Emerging/developing62501070143959156412
    Sectoral breakdown
    Banking supervisors6367563232874165423
    Securities regulators42561161192182125818
    Insurance supervisors673035524505005733
    Fills367448526676031316
    Unified regulators6040157323486718678

    The responses to Questions 2 and 3 have been compiled according to the following methodology: Each mechanism has been assigned a usefulness index ranging from 0 (not important) to 100 (most important), calculated as a weighted average of the number of importance ratings assigned by respondents (1, 2, 3, and 4 for those where no rating was provided) weighted by importance (1 = 100, 2 = 66.6, 3 = 33.3, 4 = 0—where 100, 66.6, 33.3, and 0 represent coefficients assigned to show importance).

    Including legal and statutory provisions.

    Included among the FlUs is one specialized AML/CFT supervisor.

    Table A.18.2a.Information Requested from Foreign Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 4)

    (Percent of agencies in each category)1

    TotallOFCsNonlOFCAdvancedEmerg. & Dev.BankingSecuritiesInsuranceFills2Unified
    Total licensing63715761667967551390
    Info regarding RFB63715761667967551390
    Info regarding C380131301125900
    Total supervision677164656910042643180
    Info regarding RFB626560635910042641970
    Info regarding C181619249161792520
    Total enforcement59655561564783367555
    Info regarding RFB46524350414783363140
    Info regarding C3639344325215095045
    Total action from enforcement141315179112518615
    Info regarding RFB131015176112518610
    Info regarding C8106113580615
    Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies. For every purpose, agencies often indicated both RFB and C as subjects, so the percentages for RFB and C may exceed the total for any purpose. For example, 57 percent of agencies in non IOFCs requested information for licensing, and the subject of all these queries were RFBs; however, only 13 percent of agencies in IOFCs requested information on clients when making queries for licensing purposes.

    Entries are calculated as the number of respondents citing each purpose as a percentage of the number of respondents in each category, where the categories are (a) all respondents, (b) respondents in each of the four jurisdiction types, and (c) respondents from each of the five financial agency types.

    Included among FlUs is one specialized AML/CFT supervisor. An FIU may request information for licensing purposes when, for example, it has de facto licensing authority for certain financial intermediaries (i.e., money remitters or trust and company service providers); the FIU could also request information for licensing purposes because it has better international contacts and can act as an intermediary for other domestic regulators.

    Information about clients may be requested for licensing purposes when, for example, a (host) regulator needs to know information about the clients of the parent institution supervised by another regulator.

    Table A.18.2b.Information Provided to Foreign Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 11)

    (Percent of total types of requests most frequently received)1

    TotallOFCsNonlOFCAdvancedEmerg. & Dev.BankingSecuritiesInsuranceFills2Unified
    Total licensing67776067668967641985
    Info regarding RFB64775565638958551985
    Info regarding C313131317652527610
    Total supervision63616470539550643860
    Info regarding RFB55555559509542551360
    Info regarding C211921289162593815
    Total enforcement62775161634292276975
    Info regarding RFB45553848414267274445
    Info regarding C4965384850377505665
    Total action from enforcement22291924191142181925
    Info regarding RFB18231522131125181920
    Info regarding C152691713113301915
    Note: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of the regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

    Entries are calculated as the number of respondents citing each purpose as a percentage of the number of respondents in each category, where the categories are (a) all respondents, (b) respondents in each of the four jurisdiction types, and (c) respondents from each of the five financial agency types.

    Included among FlUs is one specialized AML/CFT supervisor. An FIU may request information for licensing purposes when, for example, it has de facto licensing authority for certain financial intermediaries (i.e., money remitters or trust and company service providers); the FIU could also request information for licensing purposes because it has better international contacts and can act as an intermediary for other domestic regulators.

    Information about clients may be requested for licensing purposes when, for example, a (host) regulator needs to know information about the clients of the parent institution supervised by another regulator.

    Table A.18.3a.Information Requested from Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 4)

    (Percent of total responses received)1

    TotallOFCsNonlOFCAdvancedEmerg. & Dev.BankingSecuritiesInsuranceFills2Unified
    Total licensing55615157537458452565
    Info regarding RFB55615157537458452565
    Info regarding C353690517060
    Total supervision56585559538942552560
    Info regarding RFB55555559508942551960
    Info regarding C1213111562189135
    Total enforcement56555761504775456950
    Info regarding RFB50554754444758455645
    Info regarding C36323839312667185620
    Total action from enforcement2119132219261718385
    Info regarding RFB1916191722261718255
    Info regarding C17131717162189315
    Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

    Entries are calculated as the number of respondents citing each purpose as a percentage of the number of respondents in each category, where the categories are (a) all respondents, (b) respondents in each of the four jurisdiction types, and (c) respondents from each of the five financial agency types.

    Included among FlUs is one specialized AML/CFT supervisor. An FIU may request information for licensing purposes when, for example, it has de facto licensing authority for certain financial intermediaries (i.e., money remitters or trust and company service providers); the FIU could also request information for licensing purposes because it has better international contacts and can act as an intermediary for other domestic regulators.

    Information about clients may be requested for licensing purposes when, for example, a (host) regulator needs to know information about the clients of the parent institution supervised by another regulator.

    Table A.18.3b.Information Provided to Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 11)(Percent of total responses received)
    TotallOFCsNonlOFCAdvancedEmerg. & Dev.BankingSecuritiesInsuranceFlUsUnified
    Total licensing42424354255358551935
    Info regarding RFB42424354255358551935
    Info regarding C83111301125060
    Total supervision53455752538933551955
    Info regarding RFB50425552478933551350
    Info regarding C1710211322321701910
    Total enforcement67746261757975366370
    Info regarding RFB50554746567467363835
    Info regarding C53525348596350185660
    Total action from enforcement21192120223217181320
    Info regarding RFB1710211716321718610
    Info regarding C1719151519211791320
    Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.
    Table A.18.4.Importance of Diagonal Requests(Percent of total respondents, by type)
    Requests for Information
    Made by
    Requests for Information
    Received by
    DomesticallyInternationallyDomesticallyInternationally
    Banking supervisors
    to/fromSRA9510084100
    SRO2111115
    FIU47115316
    PA4211530
    O1651611
    Securities regulators
    to/fromSRA83835892
    SRO5033258
    FIU170170
    PA4217588
    O17000
    Insurance supervisors
    to/fromSRA73647364
    SRO91899
    FIU9099
    PA189279
    O18181818
    FIUs
    to/fromSRA63254425
    SRO251360
    FIU19881988
    PA56196319
    O25060
    Unified regulators
    to/fromSRA60905080
    SRO30151510
    FIU30103510
    PA30205525
    O051010
    Notes: SRA denotes statutory regulatory agencies; SRO denotes self-regulatory organization; FIU denotes financial intelligence unit; PA denotes prosecuting agency; and O denotes other authorities.
    Table A.18.5.Timeliness for Addressing Requests for Information (Questions 7 and 14)(Percent of total agency category)
    TotalAdvancedEmerg. & DevIOFCNonlOFCBanking Sup.Securities RegInsurance Sup.FlUsUnified Reg
    Requests for information addressed within a month
    Made by respondent
    Most frequently68667159746845788761
    Less frequently25291931212627221333
    Least frequently7510105527006
    Total100100100100100100100100100100
    Received by respondent
    Most frequently868883908410067889478
    Less frequently1171771402513617
    Least frequently3503208006
    Total100100100100100100100100100100
    Requests for information addressed in 1-3 months
    Made by respondent
    Most frequently39463146353270432539
    Less frequently61546954656830577561
    Least frequently0000000000
    Total100100100100100100100100100100
    Received by respondent
    Most frequently14821718141414824
    Less frequently85897989828585868576
    Least frequently2304022080
    Total100100100100100100100100100100
    Requests for information addressed after more than 3 months
    Made by respondent
    Most frequently0000000000
    Less frequently9710136633006
    Least frequently9193908794946710010094
    Total100100100100100100100100100100
    Received by respondent
    Most frequently47043011007
    Less frequently23040000100
    Least frequently95901009297100891009093
    Total100100100100100100100100100100
    Notes: “Emerg. & Devel.” denotes emerging market and developing economies. Table entries indicate the proportion of respondents in each category designating the indicated period with the indicated frequency. For example, 66 percent of advanced jurisdictions’ agencies indicated that over the last two years, their requests for assistance had been most frequently answered within a month.
    Table A.18.6a.Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)(Percent of total respondents in each category)
    Requesting JurisdictionInternationally
    SCORRLPCAFANonSCSIMDCT
    Total4440361813119
    IOFCs534727207137
    NonIOFCs40374017171010
    Advanced58384227151215
    Emerging market and developing economies264221511115
    Banking supervisors553645189279
    Securities regulators3838381325025
    Insurance supervisors206020204000
    FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors252563250013
    Unified regulators624615158150
    Notes: Percentages do not total 100 because agencies named more than one reason for not providing the information; SC denotes secrecy, confidentiality restrictions; SIM denotes non-equivalent functions of providing/requesting authority; LPC denotes that requested authority does not have powers to collect the information requested; ORR denotes other reasons for refusal; AFA denotes the absence of a formal arrangement; non SC denotes that the requesting authority cannot guarantee that the information received will be kept confidential; and DCT denotes that the offense in question is not an offense in the requested jurisdiction.
    Table A.18.6bMain Reasons for Refusal When Information Requested from Supervisors Is Not Provided (Question 15)(Percent of total respondents in each category)
    Providing JurisdictionInternationally
    LPCSCNonSCSIMAFAORRDCT
    Total3328241326249
    IOFCs3216371126265
    Non IOFCs30371515262211
    Advanced33272720233013
    Emerging and
    developing economies253119031130
    Banking supervisors20604030201010
    Securities regulators29292929571414
    Insurance supervisors3333000670
    FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors3317258422517
    Unified regulators43141407290
    Notes: Percentages do not total 100 because agencies named more than one reason for not providing the information; SC denotes secrecy, confidentiality restrictions; SIM denotes non-equivalent functions of providing/requesting authority; LPC denotes that requested authority does not have powers to collect the information requested; ORR denotes other reasons for refusal; AFA denotes the absence of a formal arrangement; non SC denotes that the requesting authority cannot guarantee that the information received will be kept confidential; and DCT denotes that the offense in question is not an offense in the requested jurisdiction.
    Table A.18.6cTotal Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: International Exchange
    Q8Q15
    Total4546
    IOFCs1519
    NonIOFCs3027
    Banking1110
    Securities87
    Insurance53
    FIUs812
    Unified1314
    Advanced2630
    Emerging and developing economies1916
    Table A.18.7aMain Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)(Percent of total respondents in each category)
    Requesting JurisdictionDomestically
    SCORRLPCSIM
    Total53202013
    IOFCs0336733
    NonIOFCs671788
    Advanced44223311
    Emerging and developing economies6717017
    Banking supervisors1000250
    Securities regulators3333033
    Insurance supervisors05000
    FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors33333333
    Unified regulators670330
    Notes: Percentages do not sum to 100 because agencies cited more than one reason for not providing the information; SC denotes secrecy, confidentiality restrictions; SIM denotes non-equivalent functions of providing/requesting authority; LPC denotes requested authority does not have powers to collect the information requested; and ORR denotes other reasons for refusal.
    Table A.18.7b.Main Reasons for Refusal When Information Requested from Regulators and Agencies Is Not Provided (Question 15)(Percent of total respondents in each category)
    Domestically
    Providing JurisdictionSCLPCORRSIM
    Total7715150
    IOFCs2525250
    Non IOFCs10011110
    Advanced6325250
    Emerging and developing economies100000
    Banking regulators1001700
    Securities supervisors0000
    Insurance supervisors5001000
    FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors67000
    Unified regulators505000
    Notes: Percentages do not sum to 100 because agencies cited more than one reason for not providing the information; SC denotes secrecy, confidentiality restrictions; SIM denotes non-equivalent functions of providing/requesting authority; LPC denotes requested authority does not have powers to collect the information requested; and ORR denotes other reasons for refusal.
    Table A.18.7c.Total Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: Domestic Exchange
    Q8Q15
    Total1513
    OFCs34
    NonOFCs129
    Banking46
    Securities30
    Insurance22
    FIUs33
    Unified32
    Advanced98
    Developing65
    Table A.18.8a.Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)(Percent of total respondents who requested information for specified purpose)
    DomesticallyInternationally
    Purpose of InformationSIMLPCORRSCSIMSCNonSCLPCORRDCTAFA
    Licensing3300019231227848
    Supervision014144362662121318
    Enforcement8171742526121924510
    Action resulting from enforcement250250132525130025
    Notes: SC denotes secrecy, confidentiality restrictions; SIM denotes non-equivalent functions of providing/requesting authority; LPC denotes that the requested authority does not have powers to collect the information requested; ORR denotes other reasons for refusal; AFA denotes the absence of a formal arrangement; non SC denotes that the requesting authority cannot guarantee that the information received will be kept confidential; and DCT denotes that the offense in question is not an offense in the requested jurisdiction.
    Table A.18.8b.Main Reasons for Refusal When Information Requested from Regulators and Agencies Is Not Provided (Question 15)(Percent of total respondents who provided information for specified purpose)
    DomesticallyInternationally
    Purpose of InformationSIMLPCORRSCSIMSCNonSCLPCORRDCTAFA
    Licensing0025501721132113413
    Supervision010206092712216618
    Enforcement01313631215241821012
    Action resulting from enforcement00336714292177714
    Notes: SC denotes secrecy, confidentiality restrictions; SIM denotes non-equivalent functions of providing/requesting authority; LPC denotes that the requested authority does not have powers to collect the information requested; ORR denotes other reasons for refusal; AFA denotes the absence of a formal arrangement; non SC denotes that the requesting authority cannot guarantee that the information received will be kept confidential; and DCT denotes that the offense in question is not an offense in the requested jurisdiction.
    Appendix B Questionnaire on Cross-Border Cooperation and Information Exchange Among Financial Sector Regulators and Agencies

    1. Please indicate if you are a banking, insurance or securities regulator or a combination of two or more of these, or other agency.

    _______________________________________

    _______________________________________

    If you are a regulator of more than one sector, please indicate if the answers to any question would be different for the different sectors for which you are responsible. If so, please provide a separate response per sector, using the indicated format.

    2. Select from the following list and rank in terms of importance (1,2,3 with 1 being the most useful), the mechanisms in place, both formal and informal, that provide for exchange of information with other domestic regulators and/or government agencies, including financial intelligence units (FIUs).

    legally binding agreements_______
    memoranda of understanding_______
    letters of commitment_______
    ad hoc contacts_______
    others (please specify)_______

    3. Select from the following list and rank in terms of importance (1,2,3 with 1 being the most useful), the mechanisms in place, both formal and informal, that provide for international cooperation and exchange of information with foreign regulators and/or government agencies, including FIUs.

    legally binding agreements_______
    memoranda of understanding_______
    letters of commitment_______
    ad hoc contacts_______
    others (please specify)_______

    Requesting Information

    4. Please provide a list of the type(s) of information that your agency frequently requests from other regulators and/or government agencies, including FIUs (considering the last two years). Please differentiate between domestic and foreign entities, and indicate whether the information requested relates to a regulated financial services business or a customer of that business. Please also indicate the type of agency from whom you request the information, and the purpose for which the information is requested (see table below).

    DomesticForeign
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Subject of
    nformation3
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Subject of
    information3

    Types of agency:

    • a statutory regulatory agency

    • a self regulating organization

    • an FIU

    • a prosecuting agency

    Purposes of information include:

    • licensing

    • financial condition for on going supervision

    • information relating to enforcement investigation

    • action resulting from enforcement cases (e.g., asset seizing)

    Indicate whether information relates to:

    • regulated financial services business

    • customer of that business

    5. How many requests for assistance has your agency made in the last 2 years?

    ______________________________________

    6. What approximate percentage of your agency’s requests in the past two years has:

    not been responded to_______
    been inadequately answered_______
    been satisfactorily answered_______

    7. When your request for information is met, how much time does it take to receive a response (please rank in order of frequency, where 1 is most frequent)?

    less than one month_______
    one to three months_______
    more than three months_______

    8. If information you requested is not provided, describe briefly the reason(s) given for not providing this information. Please categorize the agency and the purpose of information (see table below).

    DomesticForeign
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Reason for
    refusal3
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Reason for
    refusal3

    See list for question 4.

    See list for question 4.

    Reasons for refusal:

    • secrecy laws or other confidentiality restrictions

    • the offence in question was not an offence in the requested jurisdiction

    • the requested regulator did not regard your agency as having equivalent functions

    • the requested agency had no domestic interest in the matter

    • the requested agency did not have the powers to collect the information requested

    • your agency was unable to give the necessary confidentiality undertakings

    • absence of a treaty or formal arrangement

    • other

    9. If you were unable to obtain information from the authority to which you addressed your request, were you able to obtain similar information from other sources? Please list examples of these other sources.

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    10. Describe other challenges or impediments in obtaining information from foreign and domestic regulators, and other government agencies, including FIUs.

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    Providing Information

    11. Please provide a list of the type(s) of information frequently requested from your agency by other regulators and/or government agencies (considering the last two years). Please differentiate between domestic and foreign entities and indicate whether the information requested relates to a regulated financial services business or a customer of that business. Please categorize the agency and the purpose of information (see table below).

    DomesticForeign
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Subject of
    nformation3
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Subject of
    information3

    See categories for Question 4.

    See categories for Question 4.

    See categories for Question 4.

    12. Please indicate how many requests for assistance has your agency received in the last 2 years.

    ________________________________________

    13. What approximate percentage of requests made to your agency in the past two years has:

    not been responded to_______
    been inadequately answered_______
    been satisfactorily answered_______

    14. When you meet a request for information, how much time does it take for you to send it (please rank in order of frequency, where 1 is most frequent)?

    less than one month_______
    one to three months_______
    more than three months_______

    15. If you do not provide the information requested, describe briefly your reason(s) for not providing information. Please categorize the agency and the purpose of information as requested in question 4, and indicate reason for refusal (see table below).

    DomesticForeign
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Reason for
    refusal3
    Agency1Purpose of
    information2
    Reason for
    refusal3

    See categories in Question 4.

    See categories in Question 4.

    Reasons for refusal:

    • secrecy laws or other confidentiality restrictions

    • the offence in question was not an offence in your jurisdiction

    • you did not regard the requesting regulator as having equivalent functions

    • your agency had no domestic interest in the matter

    • your agency did not have the powers to collect the information requested

    • the requesting agency was unable to give the necessary confidentiality undertakings

    • absence of treaty or formal agreement

    • other

    16. Describe the type(s) of information that your agency is permitted to provide to domestic and foreign regulators, and government agencies including FIUs without a court order, subpoena, or a reference to any other external body. Do they vary by requesting agency? Please provide examples.

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    17. Describe other challenges or impediments in providing information to foreign and domestic regulators, and other government agencies, including FIUs. Please indicate what factors your agency must consider before providing confidential information to other regulators, and whether there are any factors in your law that would prompt you to refuse to provide assistance.

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    Improving Information Exchange

    18. Describe ways in which your agency could improve its ability to provide or to receive information from other regulators.

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    ________________________________________

    Bibliography
    Appendix Aide-Mémoire of the Conference on Cross-Border Cooperation and Information Exchange Washington, DC, July 7–8, 2004

    The conference underlined the critical importance of international coopera tion and information exchange among financial sector agencies in view of the growing integration of world markets and deepened international operations of financial firms. Participants agreed that the conference had been a very useful contribution to strengthening communications across sectors and juris dictions, and in elaborating the major approaches and impediments to infor mation exchange and cooperation.

    The conference concluded that

    • Effective channels for cooperation and information exchange are needed;

    • An appropriate balance must be achieved between the public interest in obtaining and using information and the protection of civil rights;

    • While there are historical differences in emphasis in the objectives of cooperation and information exchange in the different sectors—banking and insurance were focused on solvency while securities focused on enforcement investigation—anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) customer due-diligence requirements and conglomeration in the financial services industry are bringing the requirements closer together;

    • There are a spectrum of instruments that facilitate cooperation, including informal contacts and memoranda of understanding (MoUs). Many jurisdictions emphasized the value of informal and flexible arrangements, while acknowledging that, without legal gateways, informal contacts may not be adequate for civil and criminal proceedings; and

    • It is essential that national laws provide the basic gateways and do not impede cooperation and information exchange.

    To enhance cooperation, the conference strongly encouraged

    • Standard setters to consider making information on contact persons more readily available to relevant agencies;

    • National authorities to consider publishing information on contacts, gateways, and requirements indicating “how” to communicate with them, including their statistics on information sharing as well as unsolicited transmission; and

    • The IMF, in collaboration with the standard setters, to conduct a stock taking of barriers, gateways, and practices on the basis of an expanded IMF survey and information from financial sector assessment program (FSAP) and offshore financial center (OFC) assessments. The stock taking could include a comparison of the four standards’ principles on infor mation exchange to identify common elements and differences and ways to help facilitate compliance with the standards.

    References

    At the time this chapter was prepared, the authors worked in the Monetary and Financial Systems Department of the IMF. They wish to express their gratitude to the officials of the 74 agencies that generously responded to the survey. They also thank Tanya Smith, Ana Fiorella Carvajal Carvajal, and Richard Pratt for their useful comments and suggestions. The authors, are, however, responsible for any remaining errors.

    The preliminary results of the survey were presented at the Conference on Cross-Border Cooperation and Information Exchange, which was hosted by the IMF in Washington on July 7–8, 2004. An update of the survey, with expanded coverage, was presented at the Second Annual IMF Roundtable for Offshore and Onshore Supervisors and Standard Setters, which was held in Basel on November 2, 2004.

    Three unified regulators provided separate answers for the different sectors supervised, and their responses were included under the relevant sectors. Therefore, although the actual number of supervisors and agencies participating in the survey was 74, 78 responses by sector were received.

    As the IOSCO Objectives and Principles for Securities Regulation indicate, securities regulators oversee self-regulatory organizations, issuers, collective investment schemes, broker dealers and investment advisors (market intermediaries), and secondary-market arrangements themselves—exchanges and trading systems.

    Note also that MoUs are legally binding in some countries.

    Although the proportions shown for insurance supervisors are lower, 3 of the 11 supervisors in the insurance group did not respond to this question.

    An unusual result should be mentioned. Two (four) FIUs indicated that they seek information internationally (domestically) for licensing purposes (see Appendix A, Tables A.18.2a and A.18.3a). In one of the two cases of international exchange, the respondent is the specialized AML/CFT regulator classified with FIUs. One FIU among the four is known to be responsible for AML/CFT supervision generally, including the issuance of licenses for some entities. The other two cases may reflect both such activity and the involvement of FIUs in investigations where an entity is required to have a license and/or loses a license as a result of criminal activity.

    Since each regulatory authority or agency type received requests for more than one purpose, the percentages provided for each purpose do not sum to 100.

    That is, information that can be provided—without a court order, subpoena, or other referral—to either domestic or international authorities. Although the question had a high response rate (75 of the 78 responses), respondents gave widely varying responses, with some repeating earlier answers on impediments to information exchange. In consequence, the findings described reflect only the comments of the limited number of respondents who actually described the types of information that can be “freely” shared.

    These statements seemed inconsistent with other responses, so we reexamined the original submissions. In one case, the supervisor in question was in a small, shallow securities market and explained that major reform of their legislation was required. The second submission was quite incomplete and related to an even less developed securities market. Neither of these jurisdictions were IOFCs.

    Twenty of the 31 supervisors from IOFCs considered 90 percent or more of their requests to have been satisfactorily answered; three found 80–90 percent of responses satisfactory; for four agencies, 60–70 percent of responses were satisfactory; and four of the agencies did not respond to this question. Conversely, only one supervisor found that as much as 20 percent of their requests were unanswered.

    This result may be misleading, since it also appears to capture cases where the requested agencies were asked to provide information on institutions outside of their mandates or where the information was judged too expensive to collect. In some cases, the respondents indicated that the questions received were redirected to the appropriate agencies.

    Two of the respondents to Question 10 mentioned challenges or impediments they had to overcome domestically—namely, cases when a criminal investigation/prosecution was in process or when privacy laws prohibited the disclosure of private client information.

    Sixty of the 78 agency categories represented answered this question.

    Other similar considerations are, for example, ensuring that no criminal proceedings have been undertaken in the providing country on the basis of the same facts or against the same persons, or when those persons have already been condemned by a final judgment on the basis of the same facts, or that disclosure will not endanger the life or safety of any person.

    Fifty-five of the 78 agencies responded to Question 9.

    The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued a model MoU for bilateral relationships, “Essential Elements of a Statement of Cooperation Between Banking Supervisors,” in 2001.

    In fact, IOSCO announced, at its 2005 Annual Conference, that one of its major priorities is to have every member country become either a signatory of, or committed to sign, the multilateral MoU by January 1, 2010. This represents a major change in stance of this standard setter, given the fact that entering into formal arrangements was not previously regarded as a prerequisite for cooperation.

      You are not logged in and do not have access to this content. Please login or, to subscribe to IMF eLibrary, please click here

      Other Resources Citing This Publication