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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

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

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.

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

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.

    Other Resources Citing This Publication