09 July 2025
FATF ¦ Universal Procedures
FATF Consolidated Processes and Procedures for Mutual Evaluations and Follow-Up • “Universal Procedures”
The document titled “Consolidated Processes and Procedures for Mutual Evaluations and Follow-Up (‘Universal Procedures’), June 2025,” issued by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), outlines the standardized procedures and processes to be followed by all Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) assessment bodies. These include FATF itself, FATF-style regional bodies (FSRBs), and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the IMF and World Bank.
The primary purpose of these Universal Procedures is to ensure consistency, quality, and rigor across mutual evaluations and follow-up activities conducted worldwide. The document establishes a core set of elements that all assessment bodies should adopt, with flexibility for procedural variations when necessary. It emphasizes coordination between the FATF and other assessment bodies and mandates regular reviews to update procedures in line with emerging challenges.
Interaction with the evaluated country is a critical component throughout the evaluation process. Assessment teams, supported by secretariats or IFI contact points, engage continuously with the assessed jurisdiction, including early involvement of senior authorities to secure cooperation and coordination. Jurisdictions are encouraged to appoint a high-level coordinator to oversee the mutual evaluation process, ensuring clear communication channels.
The document stresses the importance of setting and respecting timelines throughout the evaluation process. Timelines cover all phases from preparation through on-site visits, drafting reports, review stages, plenary discussions, and follow-up actions. While some flexibility is allowed — for example, for translation needs or scheduling around holidays — delays can significantly affect the quality and timeliness of evaluations. Both assessed countries and assessors are expected to meet deadlines, with defined remedial measures in case of non-compliance.
Assessment teams must be composed of experts knowledgeable about FATF standards who have completed specified training. Teams should be balanced in expertise, considering factors such as legal systems and language skills. The Secretariat plays a vital role in project management, quality assurance, guidance on standards interpretation, and facilitating communication between assessors and the evaluated country.
Preparation for the on-site visit involves a thorough desk-based review of technical compliance based on updated information from the assessed country and other reliable sources. The assessment team drafts a technical compliance annex before the on-site visit for comment by the country. Countries must provide detailed information demonstrating both technical compliance and effectiveness regarding AML/CFT measures.
The on-site visit includes meetings with government officials, private sector representatives, and relevant non-governmental bodies. The assessment team holds preparatory internal meetings and allocates time during the visit to draft the Mutual Evaluation Report (MER). A closing meeting summarizes key findings for the country.
Post-visit, a draft MER including preliminary findings and ratings is prepared and shared with the country for comments. Communication is maintained between parties to resolve queries and refine the report. A structured quality and consistency review process follows to ensure the report’s accuracy, objectivity, and alignment with FATF standards. This process includes external expert reviewers.
Before plenary discussion, face-to-face or virtual meetings between assessment teams and countries seek to resolve outstanding disagreements. The plenary discussion focuses primarily on substantive issues related to effectiveness, but technical compliance matters may also be addressed. Following plenary adoption, final report versions are prepared with country confirmation before publication.
The document also details a post-plenary quality and consistency review mechanism designed to identify and resolve significant issues affecting report credibility before publication. This includes criteria for raising concerns, review by FATF Evaluation and Compliance Group co-chairs, and potential referral to plenary for final decisions.
Follow-up procedures are clearly defined to monitor progress by countries in addressing AML/CFT deficiencies identified in evaluations. Two levels of follow-up exist: regular follow-up based on systematic reporting and enhanced follow-up for countries with significant shortcomings or insufficient progress. Criteria for enhanced follow-up consider both technical compliance ratings and effectiveness outcomes.
Countries can seek re-ratings on technical compliance after demonstrating improvements through follow-up reports, which undergo review similar to initial evaluations. The document emphasizes transparency in follow-up processes and provides for graduated measures to encourage compliance, including high-level communications and public statements.
Procedures are also included for handling unintended consequences related to non-profit organizations (NPOs) under AML/CFT obligations, with coordination between FATF and FSRBs to ensure consistency.
Joint evaluations involving FATF members who are also part of FSRBs are conducted collaboratively, with the FATF typically leading and providing most assessors. International Financial Institution-led assessments are conducted under conditions ensuring alignment with FATF/FSRB procedures and require FATF or FSRB plenary approval.
Overall, this document establishes a comprehensive framework designed to promote uniformity, transparency, and effectiveness in AML/CFT mutual evaluations globally. It supports FATF’s objective of protecting the global financial system from money laundering, terrorist financing, and related threats by ensuring rigorous peer review processes are consistently applied across all assessment bodies.
Dive deeper
- FATF ¦ Consolidated Processes and Procedures for Mutual Evaluations and Follow-Up • “Universal Procedures” ¦ Link