Financial Crime World

Title: FATF Evaluates Antimoney Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Measures in Norfolk Island: Ratings Revealed

Norfolk Island’s Assessment by FATF

Norfolk Island, a self-governing territory of Australia, underwent a follow-up assessment by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to evaluate its progress in implementing the FATF Recommendations. The resulting ratings reveal the extent of Norfolk Island’s adherence to these international standards.

Australia’s Follow-up Report Ratings for Norfolk Island

The following ratings represent Norfolk Island’s compliance level with various FATF Recommendations:

  1. Risk Assessment & Risk-based Approach (R.1) - Partially Compliant (PC)
  2. National Cooperation and Coordination (R.2) - Largely Compliant (LC)
  3. Money Laundering Offence (R.3) - Compliant (C)
  4. Confiscation and Provisional Measures (R.4) - Compliant (C)
  5. Terrorist Financing Offence (R.5) - Compliant (C)
  6. Targeted Financial Sanctions related to Terrorism & Financing (R.6) - Compliant (C)
  7. Targeted Financial Sanctions related to Proliferation (R.7) - Compliant (C)
  8. Non-Profit Organisations (R.8) - Largely Compliant (LC)
  9. Financial Institution Secrecy Laws (R.9) - Non-Compliant (NC) …
  10. Powers of Law Enforcement and Investigative Authorities (R.31) - Large Compliant (LC)
  11. Cash Couriers (R.32) - Compliant (C)
  12. Statistics (R.33) - Large Compliant (LC)
  13. Guidance and Feedback (R.34) - Large Compliant (LC)
  14. Sanctions (R.35) - Compliant (C)
  15. International Instruments (R.36) - Compliant (C)
  16. Mutual Legal Assistance (R.37) - Compliant (C)
  17. Mutual Legal Assistance: Freezing and Confiscation (R.38) - Compliant (C)
  18. Extradition (R.39) - Compliant (C)
  19. Other Forms of International Cooperation (R.40) - Compliant (C)

Weaknesses and Next Steps

FATF’s assessment of Norfolk Island serves as a valuable opportunity for the territory to address any potential weaknesses in its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing framework and align it further with international best practices. Some areas that may require improvement include:

  • Risk Assessment & Risk-based Approach (R.1) - Partially Compliant
    • Implementing a more comprehensive risk assessment strategy and taking into account various risks that may arise
    • Developing and implementing appropriate measures based on the identified risks

Note: The remaining DNFBP-related recommendations (R.22 and R.23) were not yet evaluated during this assessment.

Conclusion

The results of FATF’s assessment of Norfolk Island demonstrate both its progress and areas for improvement in the implementation of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures. By addressing identified weaknesses and continuing its efforts to align with international best practices, Norfolk Island can strengthen its financial regulatory framework and promote financial transparency and security.