Introduction

When individuals are elected to political roles or assigned prominent public positions, they become politically exposed persons (PEPs), which increases their risk of involvement in money laundering or terrorism financing. Regulators worldwide require financial institutions (FIs) to screen PEPs as part of their anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) programs. While being designated as a PEP doesn't necessarily indicate criminal activity, it brings significant compliance responsibilities. Firms must understand the PEP regulations applicable in their jurisdiction and implement relevant measures throughout the business relationship.

PEP Categories

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) defines a PEP as an individual with a significant public role. Although the definition varies across jurisdictions, regulators typically categorize PEPs as:

• Foreign PEPs: Individuals with political or public roles in other nations, such as heads of state or government officials.
• Domestic PEPs: Individuals holding similar roles within their home country.
• International PEPs: High-ranking individuals in international organizations.

Screening requirements for PEPs also extend to their relatives and close associates (RCAs) due to the potential risks associated with these connections.

Global PEP Screening Requirements

Given the lack of a standardized global definition of PEPs, compliance professionals must understand the variations in PEP regulations and ensure their risk management practices are tailored accordingly. Below, we explore PEP screening requirements across 22 countries.

PEP Screening Compliance in the United States

• Obligation for PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for foreign PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for domestic PEP screening: No
• Obligation for international PEP screening: Yes

PEP compliance in the United States is defined by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the Patriot Act, with implementation by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Financial institutions must screen PEPs as part of their AML/CFT program, using a risk-based approach that includes enhanced due diligence (EDD) for higher-risk PEPs.

PEP Screening Compliance in Canada

• Obligation for PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for foreign PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for domestic PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for international PEP screening: Yes

Canada's PEP screening is mandated by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA). Under FATF guidelines, foreign PEPs are always considered high-risk, while the risk associated with domestic PEPs is evaluated during onboarding and through ongoing monitoring.

PEP Screening Compliance in the European Union

• Obligation for PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for foreign PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for domestic PEP screening: Yes
• Obligation for international PEP screening: Yes

The EU implements a uniform PEP screening policy for member states through its Anti-Money Laundering Directives (AMLDs). PEPs are subject to a risk-based approach to AML/CFT, following FATF definitions and extending screening obligations to relatives and close associates.

Challenges of PEP Screening

Screening PEPs can be challenging for financial institutions due to extended onboarding processes, integration of multiple data sources, and inconsistencies across jurisdictions. For example, domestic PEP screening isn't mandatory in the U.S., whereas it is in most other countries. Additionally, onboarding processes are often delayed due to enhanced due diligence (EDD), compounded by false positives from outdated data or low-quality alerts.

Best Practices for Managing PEP Risks

To effectively manage PEP risks, financial institutions should adopt best practices such as:

• Utilizing High-Quality Data: Maintaining an accurate PEP list derived from multiple data points helps identify clients requiring PEP status.
• Screening Adverse Media: Searching for negative news helps uncover hidden risks that may not be visible through other screenings.
• Implementing a Risk-Based Approach: Institutions should adjust due diligence levels based on the type of PEP and the jurisdiction they come from, while regularly reassessing these factors.
• Training Compliance Officers: Proper training is essential for compliance teams to appropriately analyze alerts and manage PEP screenings confidently and efficiently.

Conclusion

PEP screening compliance requirements differ from country to country, reflecting local regulations and AML/CFT priorities. Understanding these requirements is crucial for financial institutions to maintain compliance and effectively mitigate the risks associated with PEPs. By implementing best practices and intelligent screening solutions, FIs can reduce their exposure to financial crime while ensuring efficient PEP screening processes.

‍