- I. INTRODUCTION
- a. Executive summary
- b. The setup of the report and study:
- c. The scope of the study:
- II. METHODOLOGY OF WORK
- a. The collection of the necessary information
- b. The institutions visited:
- c. The desk-analysis, site interviews and team cooperation
- III. DEFINITION AND TYPES OF FEEDBACK
- a. Definition of Feedback
- b. Types of feedback:
- c. Feedback in cases of financing of terrorism:
- d. Feedback, the legal aspects:
- e. Feedback, the operational aspects:
- f. Timing of the feedback:
- IV. FEEDBACK EU BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS
- a. The overall feedback level within the EU:
- b. Good practices of feedback:
- c. Possible individual feedback in the Member States:
- d. Member States feedback FIU -> RE
- e. Member States feedback LEA -> FIU
- f. Member States feedback LEA -> RE
- g. Feedback as a catalyst for more AML / CFT reporting:
- h. Feedback on the basis of intelligence:
- V. THE REPORTING ENTITIES
- a. Types of reporting entities:
- b. A global overview by KPMG
- c. Comparative analysis among REs:
- d. Profiling clients:
- e. Analysis of present situation in REs, the questionnaire:
- f. Accreditation of Compliance officers:
- VI. THE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT
- a. Feedback by type of FIU
- b. Comparative analysis among FIUs:
- c. Analysis of present situation in the FIUs, the questionnaire:
- VII. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
- a. The investigative Units of the Police:
- b. Feedback from the LEAs
- c. Comparative analysis among LEAs :
- d. Analysis of present situation with LEAs, the questionnaire:
- VIII. BEST PRACTICES IN THE MEMBER STATES
- 1. Austria
- 2. France
- 3. The Netherlands:
- 4. Germany:
- 5. Slovenia
- 6. Belgium:
- 7. Luxembourg:
- 8. Czech Republic:
- 9. Slovakia:
- 10. Ireland:
- 11. Cyprus:
- 12. Greece:
- 13. Latvia:
- 14. Estonia:
- 15. Lithuania:
- 16. Bulgaria:
- 17. Malta:
- 18. United Kingdom:
- ...
- IX. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:
- X. RECOMMENDATIONS
Persistent link: https://ebvufind01.dmz1.zbw.eu/10010528115