Mexico's measures to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation

Publication details

Language

English

Country

Mutual Evaluation Report of Mexico - 2018

Filename
MER-Mexico-2018.pdf
Size
2 MB
Format
application/pdf
Download

Paris, 3 January 2018 – Mexico has a good system to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing, but should step up efforts in pursuing launderers and confiscating their assets to mitigate the significant risks.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) conducted an assessment of Mexico’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) system, based on the 2012 FATF Recommendations, and using the 2013 Methodology.  The FATF adopted the resulting Mutual Evaluation Report of Mexico - 2018

Mexico has a mature AML/CFT regime, with a correspondingly well-developed legal and institutional framework. The country faces a significant risk of money laundering, stemming principally from activities most often associated with organized crime, such as drug trafficking, extortion, corruption and tax evasion. Overall, Mexico has good AML/CFT preventive measures, mitigating measures for terrorism financing, and efficient international cooperation channels.

Most of the key authorities have a good understanding of ML and terrorist financing risks, and there is generally good policy co-operation and coordination. The Financial Intelligence Unit functions well and is producing good financial intelligence which competent authorities regularly access to. However, this financial intelligence does not often lead to investigations of money laundering, underlying crimes, and terrorist financing.

The financial sector supervisors have a good understanding of the risks the sector faces, and have implemented reasonable risk-based approaches to AML/CFT supervision. Financial institutions generally understand the risks they are exposed to and the actions they must take to mitigate them and have improved the quality of their suspicious transaction reporting over the past few years.  Oversight of designated non-financial businesses and professions is not very developed and significantly under-resourced and there is a low level of suspicious transaction reporting.  Generally, Mexican authorities have not applied regulatory sanctions, in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner across all sectors.

Despite the fact that Mexican authorities recently conducted some high-profile investigations, they are not investigating and prosecuting money laundering in a proactive and systematic fashion, but rather on a reactive, case-by-case basis. They do not systematically pursue confiscation of proceeds and instrumentalities as a policy objective, and not commensurate with the money laundering and terrorist financing risks. 

A serious concern across all sectors is that beneficial owners are being identified only to a limited extent, systematically weighing on entities’ effectiveness in assessing and managing money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

 

Download the report: 

Mutual Evaluation Report of Mexico - 2018

Mutual Evaluation Report of Mexico, 2018 - Executive Summary

 

More information:  

The FATF Recommendations

FATF Methodology for assessing compliance with the FATF Recommendations and the effectiveness of AML/CFT systems

Consolidated assessment ratings - an overview of ratings that assessed countries obtained for effectiveness and technical compliance.

 

 

 

Technical Compliance

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

Mexico Mutual Evaluation - 2018

Follow-up report

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

Mexico Mutual Evaluation - 2018

Follow-up report

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

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