New Zealand

Member since 1991

Technical Compliance

Ratings which reflect the extent to which a country has implemented the technical requirements of the FATF Recommendations.

New Zealand Follow-Up Report 2022

R.1 - Assessing risk & applying risk-based approach
LC
R.2 - National cooperation and coordination
C
R.3 - Money laundering offence
C
R.4 - Confiscation and provisional measures
C
R.5 - Terrorist financing offence
LC
R.6 - Targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism & terrorist financing
LC
R.7 - Targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation
PC
R.8 - Non-profit organisations
LC
R.9 - Financial institution secrecy laws
C
R.10 - Customer due diligence
LC
R.11 - Record keeping
LC
R.12 - Politically exposed persons
PC
R.13 - Correspondent banking
LC
R.14 - Money or value transfer services
PC
R.15 - New technologies
LC
R.16 - Wire transfers
PC
R.17 - Reliance on third parties
LC
R.18 - Internal controls and foreign branches and subsidiaries
PC
R.19 - Higher-risk countries
PC
R.20 - Reporting of suspicious transactions
C
R.21 - Tipping-off and confidentiality
C
R.22 - DNFBPs: Customer due diligence
PC
R.23 - DNFBPs: Other measures
PC
R.24 - Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons
PC
R.25 - Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal arrangements
LC
R.26 - Regulation and supervision of financial institutions
PC
R.27 - Powers of supervisors
LC
R.28 - Regulation and supervision of DNFBPs
PC
R.29 - Financial intelligence units
C
R.30 - Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities
C
R.31 - Powers of law enforcement and investigative authorities
LC
R.32 - Cash couriers
LC
R.33 - Statistics
LC
R.34 - Guidance and feedback
LC
R.35- Sanctions
LC
R.36 - International instruments
LC
R.37 - Mutual legal assistance
LC
R.38 - Mutual legal assistance: freezing and confiscation
LC
R.39 - Extradition
LC
R.40 - Other forms of international cooperation
LC

C = compliant   |   LC = largely compliant     |   PC = partially compliant   |   NC = non-compliant

Effectiveness

Ratings that reflect the extent to which a country's measures are effective. The assessment is conducted on the basis of 11 immediate outcomes, which represent key goals that an effective AML/CFT system should achieve.

Ratings that reflect the extent to which a country's measures are effective. The assessment is conducted on the basis of 11 immediate outcomes, which represent key goals that an effective AML/CFT system should achieve.

New Zealand Mutual Evaluation 2021

IO1
SE
IO2
HE
IO3
ME
IO4
ME
IO5
ME
IO6
SE
IO7
SE
IO8
HE
IO9
SE
IO10
ME
IO11
ME

HE = high level of effectiveness   |   SE = substantial level of effectiveness    |   ME = moderate level of effectiveness   |   LE = low level of effectiveness

Other related content 

  • 31 May 2022

    New Zealand's progress in strengthening measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing This follow-up report analyses New Zealand's progress in addressing the technical compliance deficiencies identified in its 2021 Mutual Evaluation.
  • 29 Apr 2021

    New Zealand's measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing New Zealand’s measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing are delivering good results, but the country needs to focus more on improving the availability of beneficial ownership information, strengthening supervision and implementation of targeted financial sanctions.
  • 21 Oct 2013

    Mutual Evaluation of New Zealand: 2nd Follow-up Report This follow-up report provides an overview of the main changes made to the AML/CFT system in New Zealand since the adoption of its mutual evaluation report in October 2009. In October 2013, the FATF recognised that New Zealand had made significant progress in addressing deficiencies identified in its mutual evaluation report and decided that the country should be removed from the regular follow-up process.
  • 16 Oct 2009

    Mutual Evaluation of New Zealand New Zealand, which is a member of both the FATF and the Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG), has recently completed an extensive review of its AML/CFT regime, and the legal framework that underpins it. The following key findings highlight the progress that has been made by New Zealand since its last mutual evaluation in 2003.

Lead Ministry/Authority in the FATF Delegation

Others Ministries/Authorities

Also member of

Head of delegation