icon-grid
Better Regulation logo
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Expand all headings Collapse all headings Expand side bar Collapse side bar
Guidance on Risk-Based SupervisionAcknowledgementsAcronymsExecutive SummaryPart One: High-Level Guidance on Risk-Based Supervision1. Introduction1.1. Objectives and scope1.2. Overview of relevant FATF recommendations and assessment methodology1.3. Common supervisory frameworks1.4. Characteristics of an effective risk-based supervisory framework1.5. Overview of the risk-based supervision process2. Supervisors' risk understanding2.1. What is the scope and purpose of supervisory risk assessments?2.2. What does the supervisory risk assessment process involve?2.3. What information does a supervisor need to identify and understand the risks?2.4. How do supervisors keep their risk understanding updated?3. Risk-based approach to supervision3.1. What is a supervisory strategy?3.2. How can supervisory strategies address the risks identified?3.3. How can supervisors adjust their approach to vary the nature, frequency, intensity and focus of supervision?3.4. How can supervisors use a combination of off-site and on-site tools to strengthen their risk-based approach?3.5. How should supervisors treat lower risk sectors and entities?3.6. How can supervisors develop a more robust risk-based approach over time?3.7. How should remedial actions and available sanctions be applied in risk-based supervision?3.8. How should supervisors measure the effectiveness of their risk-based approach?3.9. Domestic co-operation, including between AML/CFT supervision and prudential supervision3.10. International co-operation to achieve a risk-based approach to supervision4. Cross-cutting issues4.1. Use of technology by supervisors ("SupTech")4.2. Engagement with the private-sector4.3. Use of third-partiesAnnex A. Overview of supervisory toolsPart Two: Strategies to Address Common Challenges in Risk-Based Supervision & Jurisdictional ExamplesObjectives and scopeOverview of challenges identified in Mutual Evaluations5. Strategies to address challenges in assessing ML/TF risks5.1. Disconnect from, or misalignments with, the NRA5.2. New areas of supervisory responsibility - identifying the regulatory population5.3. New areas of supervisory responsibility - identifying and understanding the risks5.4. Difficulties in assessing risks at the entity-level5.5. Building risk understanding over time5.6. Engagement with other authorities to supplement the risk assessment5.7. Data collection issues5.8. Special considerations for DNFBP supervisors5.9. Other guidance6. Applying risk-based supervision6.1. Sequencing to establish risk-based supervision6.2. Insufficient resources or inexperienced staff6.3. Supervising sectors with a large number of entities and limited risk information6.4. Poor independent audits of entities6.5. Special considerations for DNFBP supervisors6.6. Role of self-regulatory bodies for DNFPBs6.7. Lack of clarity in the division of supervisory roles and responsibilities6.8. Zero-tolerance or zero-failure approach6.9. Integrated vs. Standalone AML/CFT Supervision6.10. Risk-based supervision strategies should be up-to-date and dynamic6.11. Logistical challenges in performing on-site inspections6.12. Useful resources for further readingPart Three: Country ExamplesObjectives and scope7. Supervision of financial institutions7.1. Assessing risks and risk-based supervision7.2. Use of technology by supervisors ("SupTech")7.3. Engagement with the private sector7.4. Offsite supervision tools7.5. Domestic Co-operation7.6. Special considerations for the MVTS sector8. Supervision of DNFBPs8.1. Risk assessment8.2. Introducing a risk-based approach to supervision of DNFBPs8.3. Co-ordination and information sharing9. Supervision of VASPs9.1. Identifying the VASP population9.2. Identification of risk in the VASP sector9.3. VASP sector outreach and guidance9.4. Use of technology in VASP supervision9.5. Recruitment and training of VASP supervisors9.6. Multi-jurisdictional operations and supervisory co-operation on VASPs10. Supervision in the COVID-19 context10.1. Risk-based flexibility for reporting entities and clear communication of expectations and provision of GuidanceGlossary
Document Overview
Tools
Set a date to view the document
Text comparison options
Full text - Date 1 vs Date 2
Amendments requiring commencement - Current text vs Text requiring commencement
Draft proposed changes - Current text vs Text proposed by drafting documents
Coming soon: Any documents - Any document vs Another document at any date
Print / Export options
Current page
Whole document
Selected pages
Consolidated PDF of the entire document as of 23rd December 2024
Export
Export line by line
Export provision to provision
Report template
Create report template
Alert me to changes
Manage alerts
Bookmarks
This page
This document
Manage bookmarks
Search within this document
View previous searches
Share
Get page link
Share via email application
PreviousNext
Version date: 4 March 2021 - onwards

8.1. Risk assessment

8.1.1. Brazil

252. The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of Brazil, named Council for Financial Activities Control (COAF, in its Portuguese acronym), supervises the AML/CFT obligations of those who perform the following activities: a) factoring, b) trade in jewelry, gems and precious metals, c) trade in luxury or high-value goods, and d) some kinds of business involving rights of transfer related to athletes and artists. As at August 2020, there were 20 334 entities under COAF's supervision.

253. COAF's risk model uses a matrix that plots variables of impact and probability and determines a risk and priority rating. This process is applied on entities registered with COAF as well as natural or legal persons that are not registered but are carrying our regulated activities. Based on the matrix' ratings, COAF applies the appropriate risk-sensitive supervisory tools.

254. While the focus is on higher risk entities, the use of technology to assess entity-level risk enables supervisory efforts to achieve a broader range of regulated entities, including those of lower risk. This approach allows COAF to balance enhanced and simplified measures depending on the risk level shown by the matrix.

255. The main tools applied in COAF works of inspection are: a) the Electronic Compliance Assessment (AVEC, in its Portuguese acronym); b) the Preliminary Objective Assessment (APO, in its Portuguese acronym), and the Comprehensive Preliminary Assessment (APA, in its Portuguese acronym).

PreviousNext