Qatar

Last updated: 13/12/2008

CENTRAL AUTHORITY FOR REPORTING

Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) within the Qatar Central Bank (QCB).

ARE LAWYERS COVERED BY ANTI- MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION?

Article 2 of Qatar Financial Centre Regulation No 3 applies to every relevant person who carries on the business of providing the professional services of audit, accounting, tax consulting, legal and notarisation.

LAWS REGARDING ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING PROCEDURES

Qatar Financial Centre Regulation No 3 – Anti Money Laundering Regulations, 2005
Law No. 3 of the Year 2004 on combating terrorism (promulgated on 16/02/2004)
Decree Law No.21 of the Year 2003 amending some provisions of the Law No.28 of the Year 2002 (promulgated on 05/11/2003)
Law No. 28 of the Year 2002 on money laundering (promulgated on 10/09/2002)

IN ADDITION TO THESE LAWS, IS THERE ANY MONEY LAUNDERING GUIDANCE FOR LAWYERS CURRENTLY IN PLACE?

No information available.

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A LAWYER UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO REPORT?

No information available.

LAWYERS RESPONSIBILITY/LIABILITY

Refer to Articles 6, 10 and 13 of Qatar Financial Centre Regulation No 3. Besides, according to Article 13 (3), the duties in Article 13(1) (internal reporting) and Article 13(7) (external reporting) do not apply to a lawyer and to the knowledge or suspicion or the reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting are based on information or other matter which came to it in privileged circumstances.

CLIENTS IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION

According to Article 9 of Qatar Financial Centre Regulation No 3, a lawyer must establish and verify the identity of both the customer and any other person on whose behalf the customer is acting or appears to be acting. This includes verification of the beneficial owner of the person and/or of any relevant funds, which may be the subject of a transaction to be considered. In such cases the lawyer must obtain sufficient and satisfactory evidence of all of their identities.

LAWYERS PROSECUTED FOR MONEY LAUNDERING OFFENCES

No information available.

HAS THE FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE (FATF) CONDUCTED A MUTUAL EVALUATION OF THIS COUNTRY, AND, IF SO, WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS CONCERNING LAWYERS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE FATF 40+9 RECOMMENDATIONS?

The Middle East and North African Financial Action Task Force (MENA-FATF) and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) released their mutual evaluation report on Qatar in December 2008. The report discussed a wide range of issues in relation to the prevention of money laundering and counter terrorist financing activities in Qatar.

Client Due Diligence:

The report called for the legal profession to face tougher client due diligence requirements. Although lawyers in Qatar are required to verify and identify their clients, both corporate entities and individuals, the report states that these requirements are insufficient; the report called for increased due diligence to be applied to cover the identification and verification of the beneficial owner and for due diligence to be regarded as an ongoing requirement throughout the client-lawyer relationship. Further, the report called for enhanced provisions relating to:

Obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of all business relationships undertaken by a legal professional;
Higher risk categories of client to face more stringent due diligence checks and for the legislation to include enhanced checks for unusual transactions;
A timescale by which client due diligence should have been carried out by and a detailed account of the penalties a legal professional will face if he fails to complete satisfactory client due diligence checks;
A more detailed record of client transactions should be kept.

Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR):

The report also criticised the reporting requirements relating to the legal profession. The report expressed that there was avid confusion over the process of reporting any transaction suspected of being related to AML/CFT in relation to the current legal profession privilege rules in existence. It had been expressed that the current rules relating to STR and legal professional privilege has placed lawyers in a confusing situation; a STR would clearly breach the current requirements of confidentiality, however, many legal professionals believe that they must make a STR in order to avoid to be treated as an accomplice in a potential ML or FT scheme.

The report therefore called for lawyers to have ‘immunity’ from incurring liability (in relation to breaching legal professional privilege) when making a STR.

Tipping Off:

The report stated that the AML Law should include the offence of tipping off in relation to Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs), including lawyers; in particular, they should take into account a prohibition from disclosing the fact that a STR has been made and that information related to the STR has been provided to the Financial Intelligence Unit.

The mission recommended conducting training session to train employees on matters and obligations relating to AML/CFT and called for improved regulation of the legal profession to ensure their compliance with AML/CFT requirements.

A full copy of the report is available here.