4.

krug zajedničkog ocjenjivanja BiH

Points raised by the Scientific and ad hoc Experts that have not been adopted
Ekspertu:
Finansije (GI): Giovanni Ilacqua – Vještak za finansije
Finansije (AS): Andrew Strijker – Vještak za finansije
Provedba zakona (BV): Verhelst Boudewijn – Vještak za provedbu zakona
Pravo (BG): Bill Gilmore – Vještak za pravna pitanja
(Ad hok RG): Azerbaijan – Ad hok nadzorna grupa

Vještak Section/para Komentar vještaka

/Ad hok of the report
RG

Odjel 2: Pravni sistemi I slične institucije Legal Systems and Related Institutional Measures
Ad hoc RG R.1 Odnosi se na Paragraf 36 i 37 (rizik pranja novca) na dio izvještaja “Pranje novca I finansiranje terorizma” kao I
Effectiveness informacije koje su sadržane u “Opštem osvrtu” dio koji se odnosi na sivu ekonomiju, novčane transakcije,
(Efektivnost) korupciju, tim za procjenu učinkovito je ocijenio rizik pranja novca u BiH. Međutim, pri ocjeni učinkovitosti
pitanja vezana uz Preporuku 1, ocjenjivač samo fokusirao na pitanja učinkovitosti koja proizlaze iz tehničkih
nedostataka. Bilo bi bolje da se poredi gore spomenutu informaciju iz “Opšteg osvrta” dio (Glavni iskaz kaznenog
djela koje pokreću ML rizik, organizovane kriminalne aktivnosti, stepen sive ekonomije,transakcije novca,
korupcije, itd…) sa statističkim podacima ML aktivnosti ( ocjenjivač bi se trebao fokusirati na vrste otvorenog ML
kriminala ( samopranja , samostalnih ili sa STR osnovom ili ne)) I došao je do zaključka o efektivnosti R1.
Ad hoc RG R.3 Kao što je opisano u efektivnosti dijela za Preporuku 3, ocjenjivači su se sreli sa poteškoćama u procjeni
Effectiveness učinkovitosti discipline oduzimanja (konfiskacije) zbog nedostatka statističkih podataka. Dok se ocjenjivala
(Efektivnost) efikasnost discipline oduzimanja (konfiskacije), osnovni focus bi trebao biti na poređenju nivoa nezakonitog
prihoda stvorenog kriminalom sa količinom zaplijenjenih sredstava na godišnjoj osnovi. U nedostatku statističkih
podataka koje su prepreka za procjenu režima konfiskacije,su problemi koji ometaju procjenu koja se treba
odraziti u znakovnih bodova (ili predstaviti kao procenat ili slično).

1
 Vještak Section/para Komentar vještaka
/Ad hok of the report
RG
BG SR.III Molimo Vas da daljnje objašnjenje o tome je li Pravilnik osmišljen kako bi dao efekat na SC Res 1267 koja se
p.64 et seq odnosi se na danas odvojenu listu talibana koja se odvojila od popisa 1267 by UNSC Res 1988 od juna 2011.
godine.
Ad hoc RG SR.III Prva pokazna tačka opisana u dijelu o oefektivnosti potpada pod implementaciju kriterija SRIII.5 I smatra se kao
The 2nd bullet tehnički nedostatak. Preporučeno je da se obriše prva tačka efektivnosti na kriteriju SRIII i jedna od dodanih novih
point of pokaznih točaka na tehnički dio ili spojiti ih sa s 3-com tačkom tehničkog dijela.
effectiveness
part
BV R.26 Koji su razlozi koji opravdavaju otkrivanje a posteriori ( od rezultata prema uzroku)?
Para 368 What are the reasons justifying a disclosure a posteriori?
BV R.26 Dodati CIPS na listu akronima (skraćenica).
Para 375 Add CIPS to the list of acronyms
BV R.26 Zakonska prava trebaju više pojašnjenja. Znači li to da FIU može obraditi sve informacije, čak i ako se ne odnose
Para 380 na STR ili CTR? Ako da, koje informacije / izvori pokreću intervenciju FIU? Ima li tu ikakve posebne statistike?
Ima li tu preklapanja sa obvezama policije?
BV R.26 Ima li objašnjenje za značajno neslaganje u brojkama poslanih zahtjeva u 2013 I 2014 ( 4 do 1.083 analiza / 696 do
Table 141 19 istraga)?
BV R.26 Molimo Vas da pojasnite : jeli ovlasti PP-a da primi FIU podatke koji se odnose na informacije već dostupne u FIU
Para 399-401 bazi podataka ili informacije koje je sakupio FIU koristeći posebne ovlasti?

Please clarify: does the power of the PP to receive FIU data relate to information already available in the FIU d-
base or information that has to be collected by the FIU using its specific powers? If the first, this is not contrary to
the standards and no reason for concern for the operational autonomy of the FIU by itself (the 2012 criteria even
expressly provide for this possibility), especially if the FIU would have the right to refuse. If the latter, there may
be reasons for concern but then more on the grounds of inappropriate use of the FIU powers.
BV R.26 What is the evidentiary value of the findings of the investigative section? If they go further than analysis the
Para 423 system seems to create an artificial differentiation duplicating the genuine police investigation role, which raises
effectiveness concerns
BV R.26 - The 3-step procedure from disclosure to investigation seems needlessly cumbersome and time consuming. Why

2
 Vještak Section/para Komentar vještaka
/Ad hok of the report
RG
Effectiveness the need for an intermediary investigative stage?
- The Table 12 statistics show an average of far less than 1 STR per working day! Despite the relatively substantial
number of analysts/investigators the output is minimal and the judicial follow-up very disappointing. The BiH
authorities should be able to come up with a credible explanation for this failing system.
Ad hoc RG R.26 Referring to Paragraph 389 which states that the statistics were not available on the number of disseminations
Effectiveness which actually resulted in criminal investigations. However, Table 12 gives the number of disseminations which is
very low (64 disseminations in total). Since such quantity is not significant, it should not be hard to check whether
criminal cases were opened or not based on the FIU disseminations. Furthermore, the evaluation team does not
substantiate why disseminations from FID is too low in number which is the main issue when assessing R26. The
above-mentioned factors are the essential questions while assessing effectiveness of R26. It is recommended to re-
draft last bullet point of effectiveness part and describe real operational picture of the FID.
BV R.26 Suggest to delete the second bullet point on the FIU independence
Rating
BV SR.IX The border control should also apply to containerised cargo and the mailing of currency. Is this organised in BiH
Section 2.7.1 and how?
BV R.40 1 request refused in 2013: grounds?
Table 44

Scientific Section/para of the Expert’s Comment

Expert/Ad hoc report
RG

Section 3: Preventive measures –Financial Institutions

GI R.5 The representatives of financial institutions waiting for relevant guidance for identify and verify the
Para 603, page 115 beneficial owner (legal entity). What happen at the moment for legal entity? (clarification)
GI R.5 and other In the report the new law appear to be approved in a context of gap of effectiveness caused of lack of

3
 Scientific Section/para of the Expert’s Comment
Expert/Ad hoc report
RG
Para 638, page 119 applicative legislative measure (rulebooks, regulations ….). See also what mention:
- at the end of para 439 and 440 at page 144. (R.13);
in the para 638 at page 172 (R. 23).
GI R.5 What happen with the CDD requirement for existing customer as the date of entry into force of the
Para 651, page 121 AML/CFT Law. No specific requirement in the Law (clarification)
Ad hoc RG R.5 Bosnia and Herzegovina was rated PC with 1 technical and 4 effectiveness deficiencies. It seems too
Rating harsh in terms of consistency of the assessment compared to other adopted reports. If we look
through horizontal review of 4th round mutual-evaluation reports (Bulgaria LC (3 technical, 4
effectiveness deficiencies), Hungary LC (6 technical deficiencies), Malta LC (1 technical and 4
effectiveness deficiencies), with these deficiencies, Bosnia and Herzegovina can be rated LC on R5.
GI R.7 Concerning the requirement to obtain information on respondent institution the new Law (art. 85 and
Para 685, page 124, 24) refer to a list of countries applying internationally recognised standards for AML/CFT purpose
Para 701, page 126 adopted by the government on proposal by the Ministry of Security. The obligation is refer only to
the “other countries not present in the mention list. who is at the moment also not adopted.
(considering what mention and the bullet point contents at page 129 the rating appear to be
generous – possible downgrade to PC )
Ad hoc RG R.11 Referring to Paragraphs 405-409, Article 26 of the AML/CFT Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina
First bullet point stipulates unusual transaction provision as is reflected in FATF Standards. However, Article 37 of
FID’s Guidelines contradicts the national AML/CFT Law. Article 26 of the AML/CFT Law states to
examine unusual transaction by reporting entities and decide whether make or not make STR.
However, FID’s Guidelines asserts to report STR in any case. In the hierarchy of legislation, the
AML/CFT Law is higher than Guidelines. But it can make confusion in reporting entities and
decrease effectiveness. The first bullet point should be re-drafted and transferred to the effectiveness
part as: Lack of clear distinction between unusual and suspicious transaction makes confusion in
reporting entities.
GI R.21 The AML/CFT LAW stipulates that FIU shall create a list of countries witch do apply internationally
Para 416, page 140 accepted standard regarding the ML/Ft prevention. How many list are reference for the obliged
subject ?? See also comment on R.7 (clarification)
GI R.13 A consistent part of STR have been filed in the aftermath of supervisory action in a context in witch

4
 Scientific Section/para of the Expert’s Comment
Expert/Ad hoc report
RG
Para 451, page 146, the reporting entities would not differentiate between simply unusual transactions and suspicious
Para 453, page 147 one. The reporting system appear to be not effective.
GI R.29 Discrepancy between legislation regulating the insurance market and ML/FT Law concerning
Para 603 and 604, compliance verifications relate to AML/CFT requirements. The confusion is general; how can the
page 168 intermediaries have a coordinate legislative framework ?? (clarification)
GI R.17 The AML/CFT legislation define the specific supervisory agencies responsible for AML/CFT
Para 673, page 177 supervision (art.80) but not define any authority competent to impose sanctions.

Scientific Section/para of the Expert’s Comment

Expert/Ad hoc report
RG

Section 6: National and International Cooperation

BG R.35 Only one factor underlying the rating of PC is contained in the rating box. Are there others? If not
p.240 perhaps the rating should be revisited.

5
 Scientific Section/para of Expert’s Comment
Expert/Ad hoc RG the report

3rd EU Directive

AS Section 2 The conclusion states that all elements regarding anonymous accounts are covered but it is still
recommended to introduce explicit obligations to apply CDD measures to all existing clients. This
suggests that effectively not all forms of anonymous accounts are covered. Assessors might want to
consider to align the analysis with conclusion and recommendation.
AS Section 16 and 17 The Directive under art 27 and 28 obliges the Member States to protect employees and extend this to
investigations carried out. The analysis in both cases explains that there is no corresponding
requirement in BiH and that the Directive is not applied. Nevertheless there is no recommendation to
arranges for such protection. Assessors might want to add a recommendation to implement or
specify the analysis in both cases.
AS Section 20 According to the analysis and conclusion art 25 of the Directive to impose an obligation on
supervisory bodies to inform the FIU is not required nor implemented. You would expect the
recommendation to be to implement this.