Globally, there are signs of significant collaborations amongst regulators to explore common or similar rules and guidelines operating in their financial markets, especially so to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing. 

From the very earliest days of World-Check, I recall much industry discussion on PEPs, the risk of doing business with them and the lack of an internationally accepted definition. There were even calls post the introduction of PEP requirements for regulatory authorities to produce PEP lists. Whether it was thanks to General Abacha or to the Riggs Bank scandal, the financial community has come to accept PEP-checking is here to stay. This discussion paper serves to provide an opinion on how we could perhaps better address certain PEP issues and how this subject may need to evolve.

Traditionally, investigations of acts of crime and terrorism take place after they have been committed. With the increase in the lethality of terrorism, governments should prevent acts of violence though proactive investigations. Realizing the adverse impact an attack in Singapore will have on its global reputation as a safe destination for trade, commerce and investment, government invested significant resources strengthening its preventive capabilities.

Money laundering as a crime has existed from around 5000 BC in the form of informal money transmission businesses in ancient China. It received some attention in the 1970’s with the Bank Secrecy Act being passed in the USA. However, it only came into the limelight with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001 in response to the tragic events of September 11 2001.