Back Matter

International Monetary Fund

Previous Chapter

Back Matter

Author:

International Monetary Fund

International Monetary Fund
Search for other papers by International Monetary Fund in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Language:: English

Keywords:: SEM; securities regulator; requesting authority; regulatory authority; regulator in Jurisdiction B; Information exchange; legal power; banking supervisor; information database; Anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT); Money laundering; Legal support in revenue administration; Terrorism financing; Global; Africa

Download PDF (260.8 KB)

Abstract

Mechanisms Used for Information Exchange, by Usefulness (Questions 2 and 3)

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)

^¹The 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).

^²Including legal and statutory provisions.

^³Included among the FlUs is one specialized AML/CFT supervisor.

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)

	Domestically					Internationally
	Legally binding arrangements²	Memoranda of understanding	Letters of commitment	Ad hoc contacts	Other	Legally binding arrangements²	Memoranda of understanding	Letters of commitment	Ad hoc contacts	Other
Total countries	60	48	9	62	19	43	67	17	53	16
Total IOFCs	60	48	12	73	18	55	60	20	55	16
Total non IOFCs	60	48	7	55	20	36	72	15	53	16
Advanced	59	47	8	56	23	47	73	19	46	19
Emerging/developing	62	50	10	70	14	39	59	15	64	12
Sectoral breakdown
Banking supervisors	63	67	5	63	23	28	74	16	54	23
Securities regulators	42	56	11	61	19	21	82	12	58	18
Insurance supervisors	67	30	3	55	24	50	50	0	57	33
Fills³	67	44	8	52	6	67	60	31	31	6
Unified regulators	60	40	15	73	23	48	67	18	67	8

^²Including legal and statutory provisions.

^³Included among the FlUs is one specialized AML/CFT supervisor.

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)

	Domestically					Internationally
	Legally binding arrangements²	Memoranda of understanding	Letters of commitment	Ad hoc contacts	Other	Legally binding arrangements²	Memoranda of understanding	Letters of commitment	Ad hoc contacts	Other
Total countries	60	48	9	62	19	43	67	17	53	16
Total IOFCs	60	48	12	73	18	55	60	20	55	16
Total non IOFCs	60	48	7	55	20	36	72	15	53	16
Advanced	59	47	8	56	23	47	73	19	46	19
Emerging/developing	62	50	10	70	14	39	59	15	64	12
Sectoral breakdown
Banking supervisors	63	67	5	63	23	28	74	16	54	23
Securities regulators	42	56	11	61	19	21	82	12	58	18
Insurance supervisors	67	30	3	55	24	50	50	0	57	33
Fills³	67	44	8	52	6	67	60	31	31	6
Unified regulators	60	40	15	73	23	48	67	18	67	8

^²Including legal and statutory provisions.

^³Included 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

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.

^¹Entries 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.

^²Included 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.

^³Information 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.18.2a.

Information Requested from Foreign Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 4)

(Percent of agencies in each category)¹

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	Fills²	Unified
Total licensing	63	71	57	61	66	79	67	55	13	90
Info regarding RFB	63	71	57	61	66	79	67	55	13	90
Info regarding C³	8	0	13	13	0	11	25	9	0	0
Total supervision	67	71	64	65	69	100	42	64	31	80
Info regarding RFB	62	65	60	63	59	100	42	64	19	70
Info regarding C	18	16	19	24	9	16	17	9	25	20
Total enforcement	59	65	55	61	56	47	83	36	75	55
Info regarding RFB	46	52	43	50	41	47	83	36	31	40
Info regarding C	36	39	34	43	25	21	50	9	50	45
Total action from enforcement	14	13	15	17	9	11	25	18	6	15
Info regarding RFB	13	10	15	17	6	11	25	18	6	10
Info regarding C	8	10	6	11	3	5	8	0	6	15

Table A.18.2a.

Information Requested from Foreign Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 4)

(Percent of agencies in each category)¹

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	Fills²	Unified
Total licensing	63	71	57	61	66	79	67	55	13	90
Info regarding RFB	63	71	57	61	66	79	67	55	13	90
Info regarding C³	8	0	13	13	0	11	25	9	0	0
Total supervision	67	71	64	65	69	100	42	64	31	80
Info regarding RFB	62	65	60	63	59	100	42	64	19	70
Info regarding C	18	16	19	24	9	16	17	9	25	20
Total enforcement	59	65	55	61	56	47	83	36	75	55
Info regarding RFB	46	52	43	50	41	47	83	36	31	40
Info regarding C	36	39	34	43	25	21	50	9	50	45
Total action from enforcement	14	13	15	17	9	11	25	18	6	15
Info regarding RFB	13	10	15	17	6	11	25	18	6	10
Info regarding C	8	10	6	11	3	5	8	0	6	15

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

Note: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of the regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

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

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	Fills²	Unified
Total licensing	67	77	60	67	66	89	67	64	19	85
Info regarding RFB	64	77	55	65	63	89	58	55	19	85
Info regarding C³	13	13	13	17	6	5	25	27	6	10
Total supervision	63	61	64	70	53	95	50	64	38	60
Info regarding RFB	55	55	55	59	50	95	42	55	13	60
Info regarding C	21	19	21	28	9	16	25	9	38	15
Total enforcement	62	77	51	61	63	42	92	27	69	75
Info regarding RFB	45	55	38	48	41	42	67	27	44	45
Info regarding C	49	65	38	48	50	37	75	0	56	65
Total action from enforcement	22	29	19	24	19	11	42	18	19	25
Info regarding RFB	18	23	15	22	13	11	25	18	19	20
Info regarding C	15	26	9	17	13	11	33	0	19	15

Note: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of the regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

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

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	Fills²	Unified
Total licensing	67	77	60	67	66	89	67	64	19	85
Info regarding RFB	64	77	55	65	63	89	58	55	19	85
Info regarding C³	13	13	13	17	6	5	25	27	6	10
Total supervision	63	61	64	70	53	95	50	64	38	60
Info regarding RFB	55	55	55	59	50	95	42	55	13	60
Info regarding C	21	19	21	28	9	16	25	9	38	15
Total enforcement	62	77	51	61	63	42	92	27	69	75
Info regarding RFB	45	55	38	48	41	42	67	27	44	45
Info regarding C	49	65	38	48	50	37	75	0	56	65
Total action from enforcement	22	29	19	24	19	11	42	18	19	25
Info regarding RFB	18	23	15	22	13	11	25	18	19	20
Info regarding C	15	26	9	17	13	11	33	0	19	15

Note: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of the regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

Table A.18.3a.

Information Requested from Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 4)

(Percent of total responses received)¹

Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

Table A.18.3a.

Information Requested from Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 4)

(Percent of total responses received)¹

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	Fills²	Unified
Total licensing	55	61	51	57	53	74	58	45	25	65
Info regarding RFB	55	61	51	57	53	74	58	45	25	65
Info regarding C³	5	3	6	9	0	5	17	0	6	0
Total supervision	56	58	55	59	53	89	42	55	25	60
Info regarding RFB	55	55	55	59	50	89	42	55	19	60
Info regarding C	12	13	11	15	6	21	8	9	13	5
Total enforcement	56	55	57	61	50	47	75	45	69	50
Info regarding RFB	50	55	47	54	44	47	58	45	56	45
Info regarding C	36	32	38	39	31	26	67	18	56	20
Total action from enforcement	21	19	13	22	19	26	17	18	38	5
Info regarding RFB	19	16	19	17	22	26	17	18	25	5
Info regarding C	17	13	17	17	16	21	8	9	31	5

Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

Table A.18.3a.

Information Requested from Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 4)

(Percent of total responses received)¹

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	Fills²	Unified
Total licensing	55	61	51	57	53	74	58	45	25	65
Info regarding RFB	55	61	51	57	53	74	58	45	25	65
Info regarding C³	5	3	6	9	0	5	17	0	6	0
Total supervision	56	58	55	59	53	89	42	55	25	60
Info regarding RFB	55	55	55	59	50	89	42	55	19	60
Info regarding C	12	13	11	15	6	21	8	9	13	5
Total enforcement	56	55	57	61	50	47	75	45	69	50
Info regarding RFB	50	55	47	54	44	47	58	45	56	45
Info regarding C	36	32	38	39	31	26	67	18	56	20
Total action from enforcement	21	19	13	22	19	26	17	18	38	5
Info regarding RFB	19	16	19	17	22	26	17	18	25	5
Info regarding C	17	13	17	17	16	21	8	9	31	5

Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

Table A.18.3b.

Information Provided to Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 11)

(Percent of total responses received)

Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

Table A.18.3b.

Information Provided to Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 11)

(Percent of total responses received)

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	FlUs	Unified
Total licensing	42	42	43	54	25	53	58	55	19	35
Info regarding RFB	42	42	43	54	25	53	58	55	19	35
Info regarding C	8	3	11	13	0	11	25	0	6	0

Total supervision	53	45	57	52	53	89	33	55	19	55
Info regarding RFB	50	42	55	52	47	89	33	55	13	50
Info regarding C	17	10	21	13	22	32	17	0	19	10

Total enforcement	67	74	62	61	75	79	75	36	63	70
Info regarding RFB	50	55	47	46	56	74	67	36	38	35
Info regarding C	53	52	53	48	59	63	50	18	56	60

Total action from enforcement	21	19	21	20	22	32	17	18	13	20
Info regarding RFB	17	10	21	17	16	32	17	18	6	10
Info regarding C	17	19	15	15	19	21	17	9	13	20

Notes: RFB denotes regulated financial businesses; C denotes clients of regulated financial businesses; and “Emerg & Dev.” denotes emerging market and developing economies.

Table A.18.3b.

Information Provided to Domestic Regulators and Agencies, by Purpose (Question 11)

(Percent of total responses received)

	Total	lOFCs	NonlOFC	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev.	Banking	Securities	Insurance	FlUs	Unified
Total licensing	42	42	43	54	25	53	58	55	19	35
Info regarding RFB	42	42	43	54	25	53	58	55	19	35
Info regarding C	8	3	11	13	0	11	25	0	6	0

Total supervision	53	45	57	52	53	89	33	55	19	55
Info regarding RFB	50	42	55	52	47	89	33	55	13	50
Info regarding C	17	10	21	13	22	32	17	0	19	10

Total enforcement	67	74	62	61	75	79	75	36	63	70
Info regarding RFB	50	55	47	46	56	74	67	36	38	35
Info regarding C	53	52	53	48	59	63	50	18	56	60

Total action from enforcement	21	19	21	20	22	32	17	18	13	20
Info regarding RFB	17	10	21	17	16	32	17	18	6	10
Info regarding C	17	19	15	15	19	21	17	9	13	20

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)

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.18.4.

Importance of Diagonal Requests

(Percent of total respondents, by type)

		Requests for Information Made by		Requests for Information Received by
		Domestically	Internationally	Domestically	Internationally
Banking supervisors
to/from	SRA	95	100	84	100
	SRO	21	11	11	5
	FIU	47	11	53	16
	PA	42	11	53	0
	O	16	5	16	11

Securities regulators
to/from	SRA	83	83	58	92
	SRO	50	33	25	8
	FIU	17	0	17	0
	PA	42	17	58	8
	O	17	0	0	0

Insurance supervisors
to/from	SRA	73	64	73	64
	SRO	9	18	9	9
	FIU	9	0	9	9
	PA	18	9	27	9
	O	18	18	18	18

FIUs
to/from	SRA	63	25	44	25
	SRO	25	13	6	0
	FIU	19	88	19	88
	PA	56	19	63	19
	O	25	0	6	0

Unified regulators
to/from	SRA	60	90	50	80
	SRO	30	15	15	10
	FIU	30	10	35	10
	PA	30	20	55	25
	O	0	5	10	10

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.18.4.

Importance of Diagonal Requests

(Percent of total respondents, by type)

		Requests for Information Made by		Requests for Information Received by
		Domestically	Internationally	Domestically	Internationally
Banking supervisors
to/from	SRA	95	100	84	100
	SRO	21	11	11	5
	FIU	47	11	53	16
	PA	42	11	53	0
	O	16	5	16	11

Securities regulators
to/from	SRA	83	83	58	92
	SRO	50	33	25	8
	FIU	17	0	17	0
	PA	42	17	58	8
	O	17	0	0	0

Insurance supervisors
to/from	SRA	73	64	73	64
	SRO	9	18	9	9
	FIU	9	0	9	9
	PA	18	9	27	9
	O	18	18	18	18

FIUs
to/from	SRA	63	25	44	25
	SRO	25	13	6	0
	FIU	19	88	19	88
	PA	56	19	63	19
	O	25	0	6	0

Unified regulators
to/from	SRA	60	90	50	80
	SRO	30	15	15	10
	FIU	30	10	35	10
	PA	30	20	55	25
	O	0	5	10	10

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)

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.18.5.

Timeliness for Addressing Requests for Information (Questions 7 and 14)

(Percent of total agency category)

		Total	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev	IOFC	NonlOFC	Banking Sup.	Securities Reg	Insurance Sup.	FlUs	Unified Reg
Requests for information addressed within a month
Made by respondent
	Most frequently	68	66	71	59	74	68	45	78	87	61
	Less frequently	25	29	19	31	21	26	27	22	13	33
	Least frequently	7	5	10	10	5	5	27	0	0	6
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Received by respondent
	Most frequently	86	88	83	90	84	100	67	88	94	78
	Less frequently	11	7	17	7	14	0	25	13	6	17
	Least frequently	3	5	0	3	2	0	8	0	0	6
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Requests for information addressed in 1-3 months
Made by respondent
	Most frequently	39	46	31	46	35	32	70	43	25	39
	Less frequently	61	54	69	54	65	68	30	57	75	61
	Least frequently	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Received by respondent
	Most frequently	14	8	21	7	18	14	14	14	8	24
	Less frequently	85	89	79	89	82	85	85	86	85	76
	Least frequently	2	3	0	4	0	2	2	0	8	0
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Requests for information addressed after more than 3 months
	Made by respondent
	Most frequently	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Less frequently	9	7	10	13	6	6	33	0	0	6
	Least frequently	91	93	90	87	94	94	67	100	100	94
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Received by respondent
	Most frequently	4	7	0	4	3	0	11	0	0	7
	Less frequently	2	3	0	4	0	0	0	0	10	0
	Least frequently	95	90	100	92	97	100	89	100	90	93
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

Table A.18.5.

Timeliness for Addressing Requests for Information (Questions 7 and 14)

(Percent of total agency category)

		Total	Advanced	Emerg. & Dev	IOFC	NonlOFC	Banking Sup.	Securities Reg	Insurance Sup.	FlUs	Unified Reg
Requests for information addressed within a month
Made by respondent
	Most frequently	68	66	71	59	74	68	45	78	87	61
	Less frequently	25	29	19	31	21	26	27	22	13	33
	Least frequently	7	5	10	10	5	5	27	0	0	6
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Received by respondent
	Most frequently	86	88	83	90	84	100	67	88	94	78
	Less frequently	11	7	17	7	14	0	25	13	6	17
	Least frequently	3	5	0	3	2	0	8	0	0	6
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Requests for information addressed in 1-3 months
Made by respondent
	Most frequently	39	46	31	46	35	32	70	43	25	39
	Less frequently	61	54	69	54	65	68	30	57	75	61
	Least frequently	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Received by respondent
	Most frequently	14	8	21	7	18	14	14	14	8	24
	Less frequently	85	89	79	89	82	85	85	86	85	76
	Least frequently	2	3	0	4	0	2	2	0	8	0
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Requests for information addressed after more than 3 months
	Made by respondent
	Most frequently	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Less frequently	9	7	10	13	6	6	33	0	0	6
	Least frequently	91	93	90	87	94	94	67	100	100	94
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Received by respondent
	Most frequently	4	7	0	4	3	0	11	0	0	7
	Less frequently	2	3	0	4	0	0	0	0	10	0
	Least frequently	95	90	100	92	97	100	89	100	90	93
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

Table A.18.6a.

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

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.18.6a.

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

Requesting Jurisdiction	Internationally
Requesting Jurisdiction	SC	ORR	LPC	AFA	NonSC	SIM	DCT
Total	44	40	36	18	13	11	9
IOFCs	53	47	27	20	7	13	7
NonIOFCs	40	37	40	17	17	10	10
Advanced	58	38	42	27	15	12	15
Emerging market and developing economies	26	42	21	5	11	11	5
Banking supervisors	55	36	45	18	9	27	9
Securities regulators	38	38	38	13	25	0	25
Insurance supervisors	20	60	20	20	40	0	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	25	25	63	25	0	0	13
Unified regulators	62	46	15	15	8	15	0

Table A.18.6a.

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

Requesting Jurisdiction	Internationally
Requesting Jurisdiction	SC	ORR	LPC	AFA	NonSC	SIM	DCT
Total	44	40	36	18	13	11	9
IOFCs	53	47	27	20	7	13	7
NonIOFCs	40	37	40	17	17	10	10
Advanced	58	38	42	27	15	12	15
Emerging market and developing economies	26	42	21	5	11	11	5
Banking supervisors	55	36	45	18	9	27	9
Securities regulators	38	38	38	13	25	0	25
Insurance supervisors	20	60	20	20	40	0	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	25	25	63	25	0	0	13
Unified regulators	62	46	15	15	8	15	0

^{Table A.18.6b}

Main Reasons for Refusal When Information Requested from Supervisors Is Not Provided (Question 15)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

^{Table A.18.6b}

Main Reasons for Refusal When Information Requested from Supervisors Is Not Provided (Question 15)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

Providing Jurisdiction	Internationally
Providing Jurisdiction	LPC	SC	NonSC	SIM	AFA	ORR	DCT
Total	33	28	24	13	26	24	9
IOFCs	32	16	37	11	26	26	5
Non IOFCs	30	37	15	15	26	22	11
Advanced	33	27	27	20	23	30	13
Emerging and
developing economies	25	31	19	0	31	13	0
Banking supervisors	20	60	40	30	20	10	10
Securities regulators	29	29	29	29	57	14	14
Insurance supervisors	33	33	0	0	0	67	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	33	17	25	8	42	25	17
Unified regulators	43	14	14	0	7	29	0

^{Table A.18.6b}

Main Reasons for Refusal When Information Requested from Supervisors Is Not Provided (Question 15)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

Providing Jurisdiction	Internationally
Providing Jurisdiction	LPC	SC	NonSC	SIM	AFA	ORR	DCT
Total	33	28	24	13	26	24	9
IOFCs	32	16	37	11	26	26	5
Non IOFCs	30	37	15	15	26	22	11
Advanced	33	27	27	20	23	30	13
Emerging and
developing economies	25	31	19	0	31	13	0
Banking supervisors	20	60	40	30	20	10	10
Securities regulators	29	29	29	29	57	14	14
Insurance supervisors	33	33	0	0	0	67	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	33	17	25	8	42	25	17
Unified regulators	43	14	14	0	7	29	0

Table A.18.6c

Total Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: International Exchange

Table A.18.6c

Total Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: International Exchange

	Q8	Q15
Total	45	46
IOFCs	15	19
NonIOFCs	30	27
Banking	11	10
Securities	8	7
Insurance	5	3
FIUs	8	12
Unified	13	14
Advanced	26	30
Emerging and developing economies	19	16

Table A.18.6c

Total Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: International Exchange

	Q8	Q15
Total	45	46
IOFCs	15	19
NonIOFCs	30	27
Banking	11	10
Securities	8	7
Insurance	5	3
FIUs	8	12
Unified	13	14
Advanced	26	30
Emerging and developing economies	19	16

^{Table A.18.7a}

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

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.18.7a}

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

Requesting Jurisdiction	Domestically
Requesting Jurisdiction	SC	ORR	LPC	SIM
Total	53	20	20	13
IOFCs	0	33	67	33
NonIOFCs	67	17	8	8
Advanced	44	22	33	11
Emerging and developing economies	67	17	0	17
Banking supervisors	100	0	25	0
Securities regulators	33	33	0	33
Insurance supervisors	0	50	0	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	33	33	33	33
Unified regulators	67	0	33	0

^{Table A.18.7a}

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents in each category)

Requesting Jurisdiction	Domestically
Requesting Jurisdiction	SC	ORR	LPC	SIM
Total	53	20	20	13
IOFCs	0	33	67	33
NonIOFCs	67	17	8	8
Advanced	44	22	33	11
Emerging and developing economies	67	17	0	17
Banking supervisors	100	0	25	0
Securities regulators	33	33	0	33
Insurance supervisors	0	50	0	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	33	33	33	33
Unified regulators	67	0	33	0

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)

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 Jurisdiction	SC	LPC	ORR	SIM
Total	77	15	15	0
IOFCs	25	25	25	0
Non IOFCs	100	11	11	0
Advanced	63	25	25	0
Emerging and developing economies	100	0	0	0
Banking regulators	100	17	0	0
Securities supervisors	0	0	0	0
Insurance supervisors	50	0	100	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	67	0	0	0
Unified regulators	50	50	0	0

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 Jurisdiction	SC	LPC	ORR	SIM
Total	77	15	15	0
IOFCs	25	25	25	0
Non IOFCs	100	11	11	0
Advanced	63	25	25	0
Emerging and developing economies	100	0	0	0
Banking regulators	100	17	0	0
Securities supervisors	0	0	0	0
Insurance supervisors	50	0	100	0
FIUs, AML/CFT supervisors	67	0	0	0
Unified regulators	50	50	0	0

Table A.18.7c.

Total Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: Domestic Exchange

Table A.18.7c.

Total Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: Domestic Exchange

	Q8	Q15
Total	15	13
OFCs	3	4
NonOFCs	12	9
Banking	4	6
Securities	3	0
Insurance	2	2
FIUs	3	3
Unified	3	2
Advanced	9	8
Developing	6	5

Table A.18.7c.

Total Number of Respondents to Questions 8 and 15, by Category: Domestic Exchange

	Q8	Q15
Total	15	13
OFCs	3	4
NonOFCs	12	9
Banking	4	6
Securities	3	0
Insurance	2	2
FIUs	3	3
Unified	3	2
Advanced	9	8
Developing	6	5

Table A.18.8a.

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents who requested information for specified purpose)

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.18.8a.

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents who requested information for specified purpose)

	Domestically				Internationally
Purpose of Information	SIM	LPC	ORR	SC	SIM	SC	NonSC	LPC	ORR	DCT	AFA
Licensing	33	0	0	0	19	23	12	27	8	4	8
Supervision	0	14	14	43	6	26	6	21	21	3	18
Enforcement	8	17	17	42	5	26	12	19	24	5	10
Action resulting from enforcement	25	0	25	0	13	25	25	13	0	0	25

Table A.18.8a.

Main Reasons for Refusal Given to Requesting Jurisdictions (Question 8)

(Percent of total respondents who requested information for specified purpose)

	Domestically				Internationally
Purpose of Information	SIM	LPC	ORR	SC	SIM	SC	NonSC	LPC	ORR	DCT	AFA
Licensing	33	0	0	0	19	23	12	27	8	4	8
Supervision	0	14	14	43	6	26	6	21	21	3	18
Enforcement	8	17	17	42	5	26	12	19	24	5	10
Action resulting from enforcement	25	0	25	0	13	25	25	13	0	0	25

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)

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)

	Domestically				Internationally
Purpose of Information	SIM	LPC	ORR	SC	SIM	SC	NonSC	LPC	ORR	DCT	AFA
Licensing	0	0	25	50	17	21	13	21	13	4	13
Supervision	0	10	20	60	9	27	12	21	6	6	18
Enforcement	0	13	13	63	12	15	24	18	21	0	12
Action resulting from enforcement	0	0	33	67	14	29	21	7	7	7	14

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)

	Domestically				Internationally
Purpose of Information	SIM	LPC	ORR	SC	SIM	SC	NonSC	LPC	ORR	DCT	AFA
Licensing	0	0	25	50	17	21	13	21	13	4	13
Supervision	0	10	20	60	9	27	12	21	6	6	18
Enforcement	0	13	13	63	12	15	24	18	21	0	12
Action resulting from enforcement	0	0	33	67	14	29	21	7	7	7	14

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).

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.

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).

^¹Types of agency:

a statutory regulatory agency
a self regulating organization
an FIU
a prosecuting agency

^²Purposes of information include:

licensing
financial condition for on going supervision
information relating to enforcement investigation
action resulting from enforcement cases (e.g., asset seizing)

^³Indicate 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:

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)?

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).

^¹See list for question 4.

^²See list for question 4.

^³Reasons 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).

^¹See categories for Question 4.

^²See categories for Question 4.

^³See 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:

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)?

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).

^¹See categories in Question 4.

^²See categories in Question 4.

^³Reasons 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

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 1997, Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision (Basel: Bank for International Settlements), available on the Web at http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ.htm.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
de Luna Martinez, J., and Thomas A. Rose, 2003, “International Survey of Integrated Financial Sector Supervision,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3096 (Washington).
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
De Nicoló, Gianni, Philip Bartholomew, Jahanara Zaman, and Mary Zephirin, 2004, “Bank Consolidation, Internationalization, and Conglomeration: Trends and Implications for Financial Risk,” Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 173 –217.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Egmont Group, 2004, Interpretative Note concerning the Egmont Definition of a Financial Intelligence Unit, available on the Web at http://www.egmontgroup.org.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Financial Action Task Force (FATF), 2004, The Forty Recommendations, available on the Web at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/pages/0,2987,en_32250379_32235720_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), 2003, Insurance Core Principles and Methodology, available on the Web at http://www.iaisweb.org.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), 2003, IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation, available on the Web at http://www.iosco.org.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Joint Forum, 2001, Core Principles—Cross-Sectoral Comparison (Basel: Bank for International Settlements), available on the Web at http://www.bis.org/publ/joint03.pdf.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation

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

The Financial Action Task Force 40 Recommendations http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/28/0,2340,en_32250379_32236930_33658140_1_1_1_1,00.html
FATF 9 Recommendations on Terrorism http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/9/0,2340,en_32250379_32236920_34032073_1_1_1_1,00.html
Methodology for Assessing Compliance with FATF Recommendations http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/46/48/34274813.PDF
Basel Committee Core Principles http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs30a.pdf
Core Principles Methodology http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs61.htm
The Supervision of Cross-Border Banking http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs27.htm
IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation http://www.iosco.org/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD154.pdf
Methodology for Assessing Compliance with IOSCO Objectives and Principles http://www.iosco.org/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD155.pdf
IOSCO Multilateral MoU http://www.iosco.org/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD126.pdf
IAIS Core Principles and Methodology http://www.iaisweb.org/358coreprinciplesmethodologyoct03revised.pdf
IAIS Concordat on Cross-Border Insurance Supervision http://www.iaisweb.org/02concordat.pdf
IMF and World Bank: Financial Intelligence Units: An Overview http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fiu/fiu.pdf

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.

See de Luna Martinez and Rose (2003).

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.

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share Link

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589064874/back-1.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

Working Together

Improving Regulatory Cooperation and Information Exchange

Author:

International Monetary Fund

ISBN:: 9781589064874

Publication Date:: 19 Jun 2007

Publisher:: International Monetary Fund

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781589064874.072

Pages:: 316

Abstract
Appendix A Tables
Appendix B Questionnaire on Cross-Border Cooperation and Information Exchange Among Financial Sector Regulators and Agencies
Bibliography
Appendix Aide-Mémoire of the Conference on Cross-Border Cooperation and Information Exchange Washington, DC, July 7–8, 2004
References

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

BibTeX

Zotero

EndNote

Domestic			Foreign
Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Subject of nformation³	Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Subject of information³

Domestic			Foreign
Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Subject of nformation³	Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Subject of information³

Domestic			Foreign
Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Reason for refusal³	Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Reason for refusal³

Domestic			Foreign
Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Reason for refusal³	Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Reason for refusal³

Domestic			Foreign
Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Subject of nformation³	Agency¹	Purpose of information²	Subject of information³

legally binding agreements	_______
memoranda of understanding	_______
letters of commitment	_______
ad hoc contacts	_______
others (please specify)	_______

legally binding agreements	_______
memoranda of understanding	_______
letters of commitment	_______
ad hoc contacts	_______
others (please specify)	_______

legally binding agreements	_______
memoranda of understanding	_______
letters of commitment	_______
ad hoc contacts	_______
others (please specify)	_______

legally binding agreements	_______
memoranda of understanding	_______
letters of commitment	_______
ad hoc contacts	_______
others (please specify)	_______

Topics

Countries

Series

About

Resources

Abstract

Appendix A Tables

Appendix B Questionnaire on Cross-Border Cooperation and Information Exchange Among Financial Sector Regulators and Agencies

Requesting Information

Providing Information

Improving Information Exchange

Bibliography

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

References

Share Link

Table of Contents

Sections

References

Metrics

Foresee