18. A variety of supervisory frameworks are available and utilised to take into account jurisdictional context and risks. The FATF focuses on outcomes rather than process - i.e., it does not prescribe a particular supervisory framework as long as the supervisory outcomes effectively addresses ML/TF risks. Effective communication and co-ordination between AML/CFT supervisors and, as relevant, other relevant supervisors, including prudential supervisors, self-regulatory bodies (SRBs), central banks, finance ministries and other relevant authorities such as Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) is critical to ensuring that the jurisdiction is applying an effective risk-based approach overall.

19. Examples of common AML/CFT supervisory frameworks include arrangements where there is:

• A single AML/CFT supervisor responsible for AML/CFT supervision of all regulated entities (this task is usually exercised by the same authority which fulfils the task of the FIU or the prudential supervisor).

• Integration of some aspects of supervision, for example, integrated AML/CFT and prudential supervision of the financial sector and/or the FIU or tax or other authority is responsible for AML/CFT supervision of all or some nonfinancial sectors.

• A decentralised model for AML/CFT supervision with multiple agencies and/or SRBs responsible for AML/CFT supervision across and within different sectors. The FIU or another authority may also play a role in overseeing or coordinating supervision of all or some DNFBP sectors.