The FATF conducts mutual evaluations of its members’ levels of implementation of the FATF Recommendations on an ongoing basis. These are peer reviews, where members from different countries assess another country. The FATF Methodology for assessing compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of AML/CFT systems sets out the evaluation process.
Assessments focus on two areas, effectiveness and technical compliance.
A mutual evaluation report provides an in-depth description and analysis of a country’s system for preventing criminal abuse of the financial system as well as focused recommendations to the country to further strengthen its system.
The Methodology will be used by the FATF, the FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) and other assessment bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank.
|What is an effective system to combat money laundering and terrorist financing?
|Date / FATF Plenary||Type of amendments||Sections subject to amendments|
|October 2015||Addition of footnote to clarify the interpretation of criterion 29.3.||
R.29 – page 75
To add a footnote to guide the application of the methodology for criterion 29.3 on the FIU’s power to obtain additional information.
|February 2016||Revision of R. 5 and IO.9.||
R.5 and IO.9 – pages 30-31 and 115-116
To align the methodology for R.5 and IO.9 with the revised Interpretive Note to Recommendation 5 relating to UNSCR 2178.
|February 2016||Addition of footnote on the terminology of different types of ML activity to IO.7.||IO.7 – pages 110-112
To add a footnote clarifying the terminology of different types of ML activity as referred to in the Methodology for IO.7 (core issue 7.3).
|October 2016||Revision of R.8 and IO. 10||
R.8 and IO.10 and Glossary - pages 39-41 and 117-119
To align the methodology for R.8 and IO.10 with the revised Recommendation 8 and interpretive Note to Recommendation 8.
|October 2016||Addition of footnote on tax and confiscation to IO.8||
IO.8 - pages 113-114
To add a footnote about how tax confiscation figures should be taken into account for the assessment of effectiveness under IO.8 (core issue 8.2)
|February 2017||Revision of R.5 and IO.9||
R.5 and IO.9 - pages 30-31 and 115-116
To align the methodology for R.5 and IO.9 with the revised Interpretive Note to Recommendation 5 and the Glossary term "funds or other assets".
|November 2017||Revision to Recommendation 7||
R.7 – page 36-38
To amend R.7 to mirror amendments to the FATF Standards (INR.7 and the Glossary) made in June 2017 which reflected changes to the UN Security Council Resolutions on proliferation financing since the FATF standards were issued in February 2012.
|November 2017||Revision of footnote to Recommendation 25||R.25 – page 69-70
To amend footnote 55 to the methodology for R.25 to provide guidance on how to identify other legal arrangements that fall within the scope of R.25 and IO.5 because of characteristics and features which are similar to express trusts and could be particularly vulnerable from a ML/TF perspective, and to ensure a consistent approach across mutual evaluations.
|February 2018||Revision of Recommendations 18 and 21||
R.18 – page 58 and R 21 - page 62
To amend R.18 and R.21 to reflect the November 2017 amendments to the FATF Standards (INR.18 and R.21) which clarified the requirements on sharing of information related to unusual or suspicious transactions within financial groups, and the interaction of these requirements with tipping-off provisions.
|October 2018||Revision of Recommendation 2 and Immediate Outcome 1||
R.2 – page 26 and IO.1 – pages 94 and 95
To reflect the February 2018 amendments to the FATF Standards (R.2) which clarify the need for compatability of AML/CFT requirements and data protection and privacy rules and build on the conclusions of RTMG’s report on inter-agency CT/CFT information sharing.
|October 2018||Revisions to Chapter 1 and addition of footnotes in Chapters 5 and 6 related to Immediate Outcomes 3 and 4||
Chapter 1 – page 132,
Addition of footnotes to clarify the expectations when assessing effectiveness under IO.3 and IO.4, taking into consideration the risk, context and materiality of the country being assessed.