It aims at optimizing the information exchange processes with similar foreign units. The main points of the measure
By iProfessional
18/04/2023 – 14,06hs
The Financial Information Unit (FIU) added changes to the information exchangeswhich include asking the judicial authority if it will be for intelligence purposes or as evidence in a case.
In this way, through resolution 66/2023 published this Tuesday in the Official Gazette, the FIU made progress in process optimization exchange of information with analogous foreign units.
The reform intends to standardize the requirements issued at the request of a judicial authority and improve the efficiency of the exchanges with the incorporation of a form model, thus adjusting the local regulations to the applicable international standards regarding the Prevention of Asset Laundering and Financing. of Terrorism.
What is the measure?
The resolution that will enter into force on May 17 establishes that to submit the request for information, the competent judicial authority will be requested that indicates whether it will be used for intelligence purposes or to be included in the judicial process as evidence.
You must also make a brief description of the facts that motivate the request, provide data that allow the identification of the persons or goods involved that are relevant for the purposes of the request, and establish the presumed link with the jurisdiction to which the requested body belongs.
This requirement must be made through the “Information Exchange Form”, and sent through the form accessible from the FIU website.
FIU: new considerations for self-assessment and technical report 2023
FIU: new considerations for self-assessment
As every year, during the months of April and May, the annual deadlines for the development and presentation of the Risk Self-Assessment (AER) and Technical Report (IT) before the Financial Information Unit (FIU) operate.
This obligation currently only falls on the regulated entities reached by FIU Resolutions No. 30/2017, 21/2018, 28/2018 and 76/2019, that is, those who must apply a Risk-Based Approach (RBA), in line with the Recommendation No. 1 of the Financial Action Task Force (GAFI).
As part of the feedback tasks of the information sent by the reporting entities to the FIU, carried out during the year 2022, the comptroller body issued a report called “Analysis of the Technical Reports of Self-assessment of Risks of the Obligated Subjects”.
It is worth mentioning that -since the implementation of the EBR for the different reporting entities-, there was no refund from the control body, on guidelines for the proper measurement and exposure of risks and application of mitigants. Hence, the importance of this feedback, which comes to provide guidelines and recommendations that were necessary and that the sector had been demanding for a long time.
The objective of the aforementioned document is to guide the different regulated entities and provide them with tools that allow them to increase the quality of the AER preparation processes.
From the analysis carried out by the agency identified strengths and weaknesses were highlighted, as well as recommendations for the development of the risk assessment methodology, taking as a framework the international standards set by the FATF. By way of example, some of the weaknesses detected can be mentioned:
- IT Methodology: It does not expose, within it, the form of identification and evaluation of risks of Asset Laundering and Financing of Terrorism (LAyFT) of the Entity.
- IT minimum contents: omissions were verified both of the final risk to which the entity is exposed, and of information related to the nature and dimension of the commercial activity or the internal and external context to which it is exposed.
- LAyFT minimum risk factors and mitigating controls: Absence of rating scales to measure the level of probability of occurrence and impact of the different risks identified, no weights were assigned to the risk factors and sub-factors identified. The mitigating controls implemented for each inherent risk were not detailed, nor were the action plans to be implemented to reduce the resulting residual risks.
As a result of the aforementioned points, for the presentations corresponding to this year, reporting entities must work hard to adapt their methodologies to align them with the recommendations of the FIU. To do so, they must base the identification and quantification of risks, as well as the impact of the mitigants on them, on quantitative data with scales that allow adequately measuring their impact and probability of occurrence; weights should be assigned to the identified factors and subfactors.
