After being rejected by the European Parliament three times, the European black list of high risk countries in relation to money laundering and terrorist funding should be nearing adoption.
The list is drawn up in the form of a delegated act to the “anti-money laundering” directive. The Commission made three attempts to have it passed in 2016 and 2017, but all were rejected by the relevant European Parliament committees. A fourth proposal had been adopted after a silence procedure last November (it being the question of adding Ethiopia to the list). It was on the 5th proposal for a delegated act that the economic and monetary affairs and civil liberties committees of Parliament gave their stance on Monday 29 January.
Following the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the Commission suggested that three countries be added to the list: Tunisia, Trinidad and Tobago and Sri Lanka.
In the case of Tunisia, there are still strategic gaps to be filled, explained the Commission representative addressing MEPs on Monday evening. These concern, “in particular, supervision in the financial sector, regulation and supervision of non-financial entities, transparency of beneficial ownership, capacity of the financial intelligence unit (FIU)” or the existence of terrorism targeted financial sanctions. The three countries are on the FATF grey list, the Commission representative said. Member states gave their go-ahead to these changes last week.
Tunisian Finance Minister Ridha Chalghoum, who had made a special effort to attend the meeting, spoke of his country’s “surprise and incomprehension” since the publication of the proposal for a delegated act on 13 December 2017. He gave his assurance that Tunisia was “engaged at every level in an FATF action plan”, and stressed that Tunisia was “the first victim of terrorism”.
Chalghoum’s intervention, however, was not enough to convince MEPs since the motion for rejection of the delegated act was nevertheless rejected (32 votes to 28).
It will nonetheless be necessary to see whether certain political group call for a similar motion to be voted on in plenary session. The S&D and EPP Groups appeared greatly divided during the vote in committee. If such is the case, an absolute majority would be necessary for or against the motion. (Original version in French by Elodie Lamer)