November 2, 2020
OpenSanctions is a global database of persons and companies of political, criminal, or economic interest. It combines the most important sanctions lists, databases of politically exposed persons, and other public information into a single, easy-to-access dataset. The OpenSanctions dataset makes it. The terms politically exposed person and senior foreign political figure are often used interchangeably, particularly in international forums. Foreign official is a term for individuals deemed as government persons under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or FCPA, and although definitions are similar to PEP, there are quite a few differences. Generally, a PEP is a “politically exposed person”. This is in reference to someone who is a prominent public figure and carries out a function in which they are trusted by the public. The definition of a PEP can change, the criteria could vary from country to country or even company to company. Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) are defined as high-risk people because they have a higher risk for crimes such as bribery, money laundering, or corruption than normal people. That is why, according to regulatory recommendations, businesses should know the PEP meaning, identify PEPs, detect, and control them. Welcome to CM1 Free PEP and Sanction search! On this page you can search for Politically Exposed Persons and Sanctioned Persons and organisations. Disclaimer: Please note that the lists used for this website is data collected from free open sources and may not be up to date.
A politically exposed person (PEP) as an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function. Due to their position and influence, PEPs are at higher risk to be involved in money laundering and related predicate offences, including corruption and bribery.
Before you can check if someone is a politically exposed person, you first need to define who qualifies as a PEP. FATF defines PEPs as the following:
While there is overall agreement to the above, there can be some regional definitions that are worth noting. Regulatory obligations and due diligence recommendations may also vary by jurisdictions. This interactive map from Dow Jones provides an easy way to view how regulations vary by countries.
Compliance should consult with their legal team and/or country Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) to confirm their obligations around politically exposed persons.
Compliance teams often ask us if there are free PEP lists and the answer is “Not really”. A few organizations do publish free information but almost all lack coverage necessary to meet country regulations. Here are a few examples:
As you can see from the descriptions, most of these free lists do not include local governments, international organization PEPs, family members or close associates, to name a few. When posed the question about using free PEP lists, the risk data experts at Dow Jones said the following:
Relying on free PEP lists can pose problems for PEP identification and screening in that the lists often do not provide the full name of the individual, names in original script, any identifying information (such as a date of birth), focus on top level roles only and specific countries only and do not update promptly.
Countries themselves can publish two types of PEP lists: a list of politically exposed positions or a list of the names of individuals holding PEP roles. These lists, together with other international and national regulations, have been considered when drawing up the Dow Jones PEP definition.
However, as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 2013 recommendations mention, these lists have potential shortcomings as they may not be complete (lacking names, identifiers, relatives), and are quickly outdated. We also find that very few countries publish a list of domestic PEPs.
Based on these observations and our experience, we do not recommend that organizations solely rely on public sources for an effective risk-based approach.
With this in mind, financial institutions should seriously consult with third-party risk data providers to help them screen for PEPs.
As outlined in our white paper, How to Test for Sanctions Screening Software, when engaging with third-party risk data providers to gain access to their PEPs lists, there are a few things that you should inquire about. Here are some sample questions:
You will want to speak to a number of providers and compare their data sets to ensure proper coverage for your institution.
According to Wolfsberg group, financial institutions should have complete and accurate customer data records and the PEP database used for screening should contain sufficient unique identifying data.
Having good customer records and a PEP database that can be screened using unique identifying data will reduce the number of false positives and the overall burden on compliance teams.
Unique identifying data should include the following:
When looking to see if you need to screen someone for being a PEP, when and for how long they were if office is a consideration.
According to the Wolfsberg Group, there is no agreed method for determining the time period that an individual should be regarded as a PEP after they have left the public function.
They go on to says that,
The Wolfsberg Group does not subscribe to the “once a PEP, always a PEP” as it is not consistent with a risk-based approach. When considering when a PEP should be de-classified, the group suggests that you should consider the following:
Any declassification of a PEP should be reviewed/approved by senior management and documented. In addition, prior PEP status should be noted, in the event of a suspicious activity reporting.
If you would like to learn more about screening PEPs, contact us. We can recommend a solution that is right for your organization.
Welcome to CM1 Free PEP and Sanction search!
On this page you can search for Politically Exposed Persons and Sanctioned Persons and organisations.