Yes – in October 2009
www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer/MER%20New%20Zealand%20ful.pdf
A Second Follow Up Report was issued in October 2013
www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/mer/FUR-New-Zealand-2013.pdf
It is expected the next Mutual Evaluation will be conducted in 2020.
If yes, what were the findings concerning Lawyers' compliance with the FATF 40+9 recommendations?
Lawyers were not required to comply with the AML/CFT legislation at the time of the Mutual Evaluation Report in 2009, nor at the time of the Follow Up Report in 2013. That has now been addressed with the roll out of Phase 2 of the AML/CFT Act to DNFBPs, starting with lawyers in July 2018.
Mutual Evaluation Report (October 2009)
- Compliance with Recommendation 12 – DNFBP – Recommendations 13-15 & 21 – Non-Compliant: Scope issues: The circumstances in which lawyers and accountants are subject to the requirements of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act (FTRA) are limited to occasions where they receive funds in the course of the customer’s business for the purposes of deposit or investment or for the purpose of settling real estate transactions.
- Effectiveness issue: It has not been established that Accountable DNFBPs are implementing the AML/CFT requirements relating to R. 12 effectively.
Follow Up Report (October 2013)
The Report confirmed that “while some progress has been made, a serious scope issue remains and as a result, this deficiency is not yet addressed. New Zealand reports that the scope and extent to which DNFBPs need to be included under the AML/CFT regime will be considered as part of the second phase of the AML/CFT reform which is expected to start in the fall of 2013. (…) As was noted in the 2009 MER, lawyers, accountants and real estate agents remain subject to the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996 (the former AML Act) in limited circumstances which are not consistent with the FATF Recommendations.”
Recommendation 12, Overall Conclusion: “While New Zealand has taken some initial action with regard to the deficiencies identified in the MER, New Zealand’s level of compliance with R12 is not yet equivalent to [Largely Compliant].”
Mutual Evaluation Report (October 2009)
Compliance with Recommendation 16 – DNFBP – Recommendations 13-15 & 21 – Non-Compliant:
- Scope issues: Lawyers and accountants are subject to the requirements of the FTRA only when they receive funds in the course of that person’s business for the purposes of deposit or investment or for the purpose of settling real estate transactions.
- Effectiveness issues: It has not been established that Accountable DNFBP are implementing the AML/CFT requirements relating to R. 16 effectively. Also, overall, a very low number of STRs has been submitted by DNFBPs, which puts into question the effective implementation of the reporting requirement for DNFBPs.
Follow Up Report (October 2013)
The Report confirmed that “while some progress has been made, the four deficiencies are not yet addressed. (…) The scope issue with regard to DNFBPs is discussed in detail in relation to R12 (deficiency 1).” In relation to Effectiveness Issues, the Report goes on to state that “while some progress has been made, this deficiency is not yet addressed. The AML/CFT Act 2009 establishes a supervisory model, with new powers and an enforcement regime. New Zealand reports that effectiveness in relation to those DNFBPs that are currently subject to the Act will need to be reassessed after full implementation of the AML/CFT Act in June 2013.”
Recommendation 16, Overall Conclusion: “While New Zealand has taken some initial action with regard to the deficiencies identified in the MER, New Zealand’s level of compliance with R16 is not yet equivalent to [Largely Compliant].”