{"id":38425,"date":"2020-04-15T16:28:23","date_gmt":"2020-04-15T14:28:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sg.admk-dev.de\/money-laundering-blacklist\/"},"modified":"2020-04-15T16:28:23","modified_gmt":"2020-04-15T14:28:23","slug":"money-laundering-blacklist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sven-giegold.de\/en\/money-laundering-blacklist\/","title":{"rendered":"Money laundering blacklist: Transparency? No thank you"},"content":{"rendered":"

In its first public committee meeting the European Parliament\u2019s ECON committee discussed together with the LIBE committee the planned new methodology and revised blacklist on high risk countries for money laundering. Despite critical questions from all major political groups the representative of the European Commission did not move an inch. The hearing is the next step in an epic battle between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission about the weak actions of the European Union against financial crime from third countries. As a result the money laundering black list of the EU is now outdated compared with the global list of the anti-money laundering body FATF.<\/span><\/p>\n

MEP Sven Giegold, financial and economic policy spokesperson of the Greens\/EFA group commented:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe European Commission is ill advised to ignore the cross-party critique from the European Parliament. The European Union is obliged to the highest level of transparency. It is not acceptable to lock the public out of all deliberations on money laundering in third countries. As with the EU black list of tax havens, the public has to know when a third country is under scrutiny for favouring financial crime. The EU\u2019s anti-money laundering blacklist needs a grey list. Equally as many documents as possible should be made available to the public.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Equally the European Commission has failed to reassure the Parliament that all jurisdictions blacklisted by the FATF will be listed by the EU as well. Albania should not get special treatment when it comes to financial crime. As an accession country Albania deserves support to fight financial crime. But, a general exemption is not justified.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

————<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Background: the Green\u2019s questions in the hearing.<\/b><\/p>\n

Question 1<\/span><\/p>\n

As its last plenary session in February 2020, the FATF updated its list of high-risk and other monitored jurisdictions and included several new countries (e.g. Albania, Barbados, Jamaica, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Uganda). This usually triggers the necessity for the European Union to update its own delegated act. Can the Commission confirm that when it will present its new delegated act in a few weeks, <\/span>all countries recently classified by FATF as \u201cto be monitored\u201d will be included in the European list<\/b>? If not, what are the reasons for some of these countries receiving special treatment?<\/span><\/p>\n

Question 2<\/span><\/p>\n

The new methodology for identifying high risk third countries includes several steps until the Commission actually lists such countries into its delegated act. As confirmed by your written answer received today, you indicate that the Commission will ensure full transparency with the co-legislators throughout the process but there will be no information available to the public during what you call \u201cthe preliminary phase of assessment\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n