Kenya replaces Uganda on EU money laundering list

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union (EU), has removed Uganda from its list of high risk jurisdictions in regards to money laundering and financing terrorism.
Other delisted countries are Barbados, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Panama, the Philippines, Senegal, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
However, Uganda’s neighbour, Kenya, has been added along with Algeria, Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Laos, Lebanon, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal and Venezuela.
The EU believes these countries are not doing enough to combat the misuse of their financial systems by criminals and terrorists.
According to a statement on Tuesday, EU entities are required to apply enhanced vigilance in transactions involving these countries. This is important to protect the EU financial system.
Under EU regulations, gatekeepers, such as banks, are obliged to carefully consider business relationships and transactions involving high-risk third countries through increased checks and control measures.
The updated list takes into account the work of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) which early last year removed Uganda from its Grey List.
FATF identifies jurisdictions with weak measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CFT).
Countries on the Grey List actively work with the FATF to address strategic deficiencies in their regimes to counter money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing.
Money laundering is a financial crime in which the source of illegally acquired money or goods is hidden from law enforcement and financial regulators by generating the appearance of legitimacy for the illicit gains.
As a founding member of FATF, the Commission is closely involved in monitoring the progress of the listed jurisdictions, helping them to fully implement their respective action plans agreed with FAFT. Alignment with FATF is important for upholding the EU´s commitment to promoting and implementing global standards.
The Commission has carefully considered the concerns expressed regarding its previous proposal and conducted a thorough technical assessment, based on specific criteria and a well‑defined methodology, incorporating information collected through the FATF, bilateral dialogues and on‑site visits to the jurisdictions in question.