Can the AML system be evaluated without better data?
Can the AML system be evaluated without better data?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10611-017-9757-4
复制
发表时间：
2018-03-01
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Halliday, Terence
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Levi, Michael;Reuter, Peter;Halliday, Terence
反洗钱制度在协调法律和机构方面发挥着重要作用，并得到了全球政治支持。然而，对于任何反洗钱干预措施在实现其目标方面的效果进行评估的努力却很少。对于洗钱总量（全球或国家）以及反洗钱旨在避免的大多数具体严重危害，都没有可靠的估计。因此，减少这些并不是一个合理的结果措施。 FATF 相互评估报告 (MER) 中的国家评估人员很少努力获取定性数据或认真分析定量或定性数据。我们发现数据在政策制定和实施中相对不重要。此外，评估之间约8年的漫长差距意味着广泛使用的反洗钱“国家风险”模型仍然被迫很大程度上依赖于第三轮评估，而第三轮评估使用的数据很少且不一致。尽管第四轮 MER（2014-2022）已努力在数据收集和分析方面更加系统化，但 FATF 仍未建立提供足够信息评估的程序。我们对主要国家最近五次国家风险评估（新评估的主要组成部分）的分析表明，数据的使用很少，尽管英国明显优于其他国家。在缺乏更加一致和系统的数据分析的情况下，声称各国的系统效率较低或较高的说法将容易受到临时、印象主义或政治化判断的指控。这降低了它们的合法性，但这并不意味着反洗钱工作和评估流程本身没有效果。
The Anti-Money Laundering regime has been important in harmonizing laws and institutions, and has received global political support. Yet there has been minimal effort at evaluation of how well any AML intervention does in achieving its goals. There are no credible estimates either of the total amount laundered (globally or nationally) nor of most of the specific serious harms that AML aims to avert. Consequently, reduction of these is not a plausible outcome measure. There have been few efforts by country evaluators in the FATF Mutual Evaluation Reports (MERs) to acquire qualitative data or seriously analyze either quantitative or qualitative data. We find that data are relatively unimportant in policy development and implementation. Moreover, the long gaps of about 8 years between evaluations mean that widely used 'country risk' models for AML are forced still to rely largely on the 3rd Round evaluations whose use of data was minimal and inconsistent. While the 4th round MERs (2014-2022) have made an effort to be more systematic in the collection and analysis of data, FATF has still not established procedures that provide sufficiently informative evaluations. Our analysis of five recent National Risk Assessments (a major component of the new evaluations) in major countries shows little use of data, though the UK is notably better than the others. In the absence of more consistent and systematic data analysis, claims that countries have less or more effective systems will be open to allegations of ad hoc, impressionistic or politicized judgments. This reduces their perceived legitimacy, though this does not mean that the AML efforts and the evaluation processes themselves have no effects.