Under The Anti-Money Laundering And Counter Terrorism: Fill & Download for Free

I must say, it is a very sad day for Pakistan as,Not only the FATF Asia- Pacific Group (APG) has placed Pakistan in the blacklist today, after the conclusion its meeting in Canberra,US, UK and Canada at a UN meet slam Pakistan and China for discriminating against religious minorities.UNICEF rejected Pakistan’s request to remove Priyanka Chopra as goodwill ambassador.How many insults can a country take in one day?Coming to the question, Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an international policy-making body that sets international anti-money laundering standards and counter-terrorist financing measures. It was formed in 1989 by the G-7.FATF and its partners such as APG (of which India is a voting member and Co- chair) review processes, systems and weaknesses on the basis of standard matrix for Anti- Money Laundering (AML) and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT)Pakistan has been under the scanner of FATF since June 2018 when it was put on the “Grey list” for the second time.Grey List countries are the countries which are considered as the safe heaven for supporting terror funding and money laundering.When a country comes in the Grey list, it faces many problems like;Economic sanctions from international institutions (IMF, World Bank, ADB etc.) and countriesProblem in getting loans from international institutions (IMF, World Bank, ADB etc.) and countriesOverall Reduction in its international tradeInternational boycottNow Grey list is a warning given to the country that it might come in Black list.Black List countries are the countries which the FATF judges to be non-cooperative in the global fight against money laundering and terror funding. It is far more severe.They have been monitoring Pakistan and have found out of 40 compliance parameters, Pakistan was Non-Compliant on 32. On 11 effectiveness parameters, Pakistan was adjudged as Low on 10.Pakistan faced an annual loss of $10 billion on the Grey List. This is a powerful blow to the already deteriorating economy of Pakistan as it may jeopardize the $6 Billion IMF loan.Pakistan now has to focus on avoiding the Black List in Oct 2019, when the 15-month timeline ends on FATF's Action Plan.

Limiting cash transactions is one of several steps that nations take to assist anti-money laundering activities. Money-laundering typically involves three steps: placement, layering, and integration of the proceeds of criminal activities.[1] Restrictions on the amount of cash transactions help to limit the ability and ease with which criminals place monies into the financial system.Each country's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism/proliferation legislative efforts are unique to that countries' regulatory structure. Germany is part of the FATF, or Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental body, whose "objectives are to set standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system." [2] The FATF publishes International Standards and Recommendations on Combatting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation, and an FATF Methodology to assess the effectiveness of AML/CFT systems. [3] Each member, as well as affiliated organizations and their country-members, implements the recommendations as they see fit, and as relevant to their financial regulatory scheme.In October, 2015, The FATF published a report on "Money laundering through the Physical Transportation of Cash", describing methods and techniques criminals use to transport large amounts of cash across borders, complete with photos and case studies of large amounts of cash allegedly intended to support and fund terrorist activities confiscated by authorities in Tunisia, Mexico, and the US, among other places. It's fascinating reading.[4] The report describes the status of national legislation within the EU curbing use of cash like this:A significant factor in a criminal’s decision to transport cash to another country may be the ease with which he can use it to purchase high-value items in that country. Many countries consider the use of cash to purchase assets, such as cars, as a ML risk and/or a vehicle for tax fraud (although others disagree that this is the case) and have introduced legislation restricting the amount of cash that can be used in a single transaction. Within the EU, there is a wide variation of practices. Some countries place a limit on the amount of cash that may be used to purchase all goods, or certain types of goods (these limits vary between EUR 1 000 and EUR 15 000), whilst some countries impose no limits at all. Other countries do not impose a limit, but instead require businesses accepting large amounts of cash to implement procedures designed to identify (and discourage) the use of cash by criminals to purchase high-value goods.[5]The USA doesn't impose limits on cash transactions, instead relying on reporting and disclosure by financial and other regulated organizations primarily under the Bank Secrecy Act. [6] In the United States, a form of Currency transaction report has been required to be filed with FinCEN[7] for any financial transaction involving more than $10,000 in currency, since about 1986. In 1997, the US Treasury imposed a limit, successfully, on cash transactions of over $750 at remittance shops, targeted at limiting the easy movement of large amounts of cash garnered by drug cartels. [8]Banks and financial institutions have been known to set limits on cash transaction activity per statement cycle for small business accounts in the US, especially as connected to international wire transactions, as part of their regulatorily mandated risk-based anti-money laundering processes.[9] They've also closed accounts linked to certain high-risk businesses and activities, especially where the institution might lack sufficient resources to review and conduct regulatory required due diligence (in other words, the monitoring required by regulators for certain kinds of accounts is so expensive that it makes more "sense" to impose significant limitations or close the accounts and no longer offer services to that type of business.)[10] Cash-intensive businesses, like gas stations and movie theaters; gun-sellers; jewelers; pawn brokers; lawyers; money service businesses (check-cashers and remittances); and real estate brokers are examples of businesses subject to additional due diligence and monitoring by financial institutions pursuant to FFIEC guidelines. [11]In Spain, cash transactions over 2500 Euros that “involve at least one professional entrepreneur” aren't allowed, as of 2012. Fines of 25 percent of the transaction amount are, in theory, imposed on those breaking the rule. [12] In Spain, the limits were primarily imposed in order to combat tax evasion. Italy instituted an emergency procedure in 2011, to limit cash transactions to $1000 Euros,[13] again to reduce tax fraud, but also with the hopes of reducing money laundering activity and crime.The experience of other countries' use of cash restrictions suggests that cash limits are effective in combatting money-laundering by impeding placement and integration of criminal proceeds into the legitimate financial system, sufficient to support Germany's implementation of this particular tool in its counter-terrorism and anti-money-laundering arsenal.Footnotes[1] Methods and Stages in Money Laundering[2] Financial Action Task Force (FATF)[3] Page on fatf-gafi.org[4] Financial Action Task Force (FATF)[5] Financial Action Task Force (FATF)[6] Bank Secrecy Act[7] Page on fincen.gov[8] Limits on Cash Transactions Cut Drug-Money Laundering[9] UPDATED: Chase Bank Limits Cash Withdrawals, Bans International Wire Transfers[10] Why your bank can break up with you[11] Online Manual - BSA InfoBase - FFIEC[12] Spain to Limit Cash Transactions to Fight Tax Fraud[13] Italy's Cap on Cash Payments

No, I think that is egregiously false.There are some truly excellent answers here, and I won’t repeat them except to summarize some of the points of people like Gérard Briais, Mark Besser, Graham Maloney and Krister Sunderlin, as well as others:The EU has quite a powerful defensive capabilityThe creation of and management of this defensive capability has not stopped European countries from building their social programs. Sweden is an excellent example of this (and I strongly recommend Mr. Sunderlin’s answer here).The answer to this question might have been different in 1950 (although even that’s debatable: the Soviet Union had just lost 20 million men and really wasn’t in shape to push farther West).This has been one of those consistently repeated right-wing tropes that we hear over and over again from American far-right conservatives with no real analysis to back it up aside from the fact that the United States spends a fortune on defence.I’d like to put that last point in a bit of historical context.Since the United States spends so much more than everyone else, including its allies, it is understandable that people would say that is has been “footing the bill” for defence. The counter-argument is simply that the United States overspends on defence and that therefore insisting that its allies should spend more is wrong.Imagine my friends and I decide to go sailing. We rent a boat and we want to be safe. We lay down some ground rules, buy life vests, make sure the radio works, and each get training to ensure that we know what we’re doing. We have assessed the risk and taken reasonable precautions. One of us, though, insists it’s not enough. He wants to buy three radios, in case two break, he wants to spend more to get a more modern boat, and he wants to hire a helicopter to shadow us the whole way just to be sure, constantly radioing updates. We say that’s excessive, but he insists, pays for all that, has the helicopter radio to us every time there’s a boat within three miles of us, and then says afterwards that the only reason we’re all alive is thanks to him.I think this is analogous to the defence situation between America and its allies. Let me expound…As has been pointed out, the United States spends a lot on its military. A LOT. In fact, it spends more than the next seven nations combined[1]. Americans will point out that it’s only 3.3% of GDP. This is true, but it’s still an enormous amount, and remember that the next highest spender, China (a potential enemy) only spends 1.9% of its GDP[2]. Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the Roman empire only spent about 2.5% of GDP on its military, and they had to deal with barbarian hordes[3].And what does that spending get us? For one thing, a lot of nukes. For example, the United States has 14 Ohio-class nuclear missile subs. These are for deterrence. Let’s consider what one of these can do. Each Ohio-class sub can carry 24 Trident missiles. Each missile can have eight warheads. Each warhead can have a yield up to 475KT [4]. The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima had a 15KT yield. This means that each Ohio class sub potentially has the destructive power of well over 5,000 Hiroshima weapons. We have fourteen of them. Plus our land-based ICBM force, plus aircraft and cruise-missile nukes. Honestly, I don’t care how many weapons anybody else has. If you have a sledgehammer to squash a grape it’s absurd to maintain that you need a bigger sledgehammer to do your grape squashing because your Russian neighbor has a bigger sledgehammer. Your grape will be fully squashed either way.All of this is in a context of a world that was supposed to reduce nuclear weapons. The “Global Zero” initiative, launched in 2008 by people like George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, has called for the elimination of nuclear weapons[5]. This sentiment is why American politicians have reduced nuclear expenditures since the end of the cold war, and why Obama won the Nobel prize for moving in this direction[6]… until Donald Trump evidently decided to invest in them[7].So is the United States over-armed? Certainly, the United Nations has long thought so. In 2008 already Ban Ki-Moon stated that the world is over-armed and peace is under-funded[8]. However, we can not allow threats to exist. So how does US spending counter threats?On top of the nuclear deterrence, the United States has a massive conventional capability including, for example, ten nuclear aircraft carriers. How effective are these in countering the threats faced by the United States and by its allies?I suggest that they are largely useless. The American military machine is geared towards fighting world war three. As such, it uses this machine to fight world war three even when it has not broken out. We saw the impact of this in Vietnam, we have been seeing it in Iraq since 2003. To a man with an aircraft carrier, everything looks like a tank, but we are not fighting tanks, we are largely fighting terrorists. How should they be fought?According to GW Bush’s special assistant on homeland security: “Instead of facing a single, predominantly military threat capable of wiping out the entire nation (and the world), we are faced with a myriad of threats, smaller in magnitude and harder to see and counter”, and “The task is enormous and requires efforts on many fronts: law enforcement, military, intelligence, finance, diplomacy, homeland defence, and health care. This effort of statecraft must bring together the greatest possible international coalition and marshal all available resources to face this challenge”[9]. The UN office of global counter-terrorism reaches similar conclusions[10], as do most experts: the key is cooperation in international intelligence; anti money-laundering; coordinating policing and counter-terrorism activities and lastly… way, way behind all that… military force. For my part, I am firmly convinced that if we hadn’t used our world-war-three-oriented military to invade Iraq in 2003 then sure, we’d have one more nasty dictator still in place in Saddam (arguably way less nasty than the man who just got a photo-op with Trump) but we wouldn’t have had ISIS, wouldn’t have had the Syrian war, and we would have gotten bin Laden way faster. That has been the impact of America’s aircraft carriers and defence spending on the war on terror.So why on earth does the United States spend so much? Many people will say that attitudes such as my own reflect those of infamous wimps like Neville Chamberlain, that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. But those who obsess with the past end up building the Maginot line to counter the blitzkrieg and are defeated in six weeks. No major country is facing an existential threat from any other major country, except that implicit in an accidental nuclear exchange. So many Americans go on about how the “Scandinavian socialism” can only exist because of American might, otherwise Russia would immediately set up shop in Stockholm, Helsinki or Oslo.This is ridiculous. Finland actually fought off the Soviet Union, all by itself, in 1939 and neither it nor Sweden have ever been part of NATO, and therefore have never benefitted from US protection. But even beyond that, it is alarmist and downright silly to imagine that Russia, or anyone else, is going to attack a Western European democracy in a bid for conquest. I know, Russia has attacked former Soviet republics, but honestly, we are dealing with a different dynamic. They have attacked nations that were actually part of Russia, even before the Soviet Union, and that are poorly armed and had no external allies at all. China too is not going to embark on expansion by conquest (in its 2000 year history, it almost never did) and I’m willing to bet that those who most ardently believe the contrary have never been to either country. On the other hand, China will gladly fill the ever increasing void left by the United States’ abandonment of its soft power capital.So again, why? I think Eisenhower said it all in his farewell speech:“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together”[11]What he did not foresee was that not only was there a danger for a “disastrous rise of misplaced power” in the military-industrial complex, but there was likewise a danger that this would be further used to insult and badger our allies, browbeating them and convincing our own electorate that it can not benefit from the basic decencies of modern society because of the necessity of maintaining a grotesquely bloated destructive capability in order to defend against enemies that no longer exist. He did not imagine, in summary, that this old trope would be repeated so insistently that otherwise intelligent people would be driven to ask this particular question on Quora.Footnotes[1] Ranking: military spending by country 2017 | Statistic[2] Military expenditure (% of GDP)[3] http://www.roiw.org/1984/263.pdf[4] Why Russia and China Fear America's Ohio-Class Submarines[5] Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Possible?[6] The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009[7] Trump wanted dramatic increase in nuclear arsenal in military meeting[8] ‘The World Is Over-armed and Peace Is Under-funded’ Says Secretary-General as He Opens Mexico City Conference’[9] https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2001/Combating-New-Security-Threats/Fighting-terrorism/EN/index.htm[10] Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force[11] Transcript of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)