FATF Paris meeting a ‘real test’ for Iran’s AML progress

body, and that every single action is based on technically defined criteria. However, concrete records of the organisation’s practices do not always support this claim, at least in Iran’s case.

We all know that technical impartiality and professional conduct free from political and other pressures is not always an easy undertaking. The above-mentioned example involving Royce was not the only evidence signalling attempts by US officials to influence the decision-making process in the Paris meeting.

Nonetheless, US government representatives will have a hard time convincing other delegates of their position, as there is almost no technical feature in the action plan that is left unimplemented by Iran.

Apart from a couple of relevant draft legislations sent to the parliament for final approval, Iran has proved successful in applying a satisfactory level of standards in many areas of financial and banking transactions in line with what many other jurisdictions have done under the strict evaluation measures of FATF. The system is already working for Iran based on relevant national laws and mechanisms.

The credibility of FATF will be at stake this month, as many officials and experts from around the globe will be carefully eying the assessment process during the upcoming plenary meeting. They would like to see who will ultimately win: Royce and his fellow American politicians, or impartial professional experts.

Moreover, the Iranian government, parliament and the general public will also carefully watch the course of the decision-making process in FATF. The potential corruption of what is advertised as a purely technical process by the undue influence of the Trump administration will reflect poorly on FATF as a whole. There clearly remains no room for any excuse.