Macao, China’s Counter-Terrorism Financing Laws and Regulations: A Critical Evaluation

Gaps in Scope of Criminalization

Macao, China’s implementation of counter-terrorism financing (CTF) laws and regulations has been analyzed to identify gaps in the scope of criminalization. The evaluation highlights the following issues:

• Inadequate definition of terrorist offences: Sub-criterion 5.2(a) is not fully met due to deficiencies in the definition of terrorist offences considered to be “acts”. This lack of clarity creates ambiguity and potential loopholes in the law.
• Limited scope of financing terrorism: Sub-criterion 5.2(b) is not met because Article 7(2)(1) extends the offence to funding terrorist organizations or individual terrorists, but only when there is an intention that the funds will be used for any type of terrorist activity.

Article 7: Financing of Terrorism

Article 7 provides a penalty of 1-8 years imprisonment for rendering available or collecting funds with the purpose of financing terrorism. However, the following concerns remain:

• Funding for specific terrorist acts: The offence is committed whenever funding is provided for specific terrorist acts or to pursue any type of terrorist activities, even if not linked to specific terrorist acts.
• Intent and actual use: It is still unclear whether the TF offense requires proof that the funds were actually used to carry out or attempt a terrorist act.

Remaining Gaps and Compliance

Macao, China has made some amendments to narrow the gaps in the scope of criminalization of CTF. However, the following issues persist:

• Travel of foreign fighters: The travel of foreign fighters for the purpose of planning terrorist acts is not clearly covered.
• Actual use of funds: It remains unclear whether the TF offense requires proof that the funds were actually used to carry out or attempt a terrorist act.

Recommendations 7 and 18

Macao, China was rated compliant with Recommendation 7 in its 2017 MER. However, changes in UNSCR references from 1737 to 2231 have been made, and Macao, China’s legal framework for implementing TFS is consistent.

Recommendation 7: Macao, China remains compliant with Recommendation 7.

• Compliance status: Macao, China was rated compliant with R.18 in its 2017 MER.
• Revised requirements: The INR.18 was revised to clarify the requirements on sharing information relating to unusual or suspicious transactions within financial groups.
• Remaining compliance: Macao, China remains compliant with Recommendation 18.