Who Are Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs)?

A Politically Exposed Person (PEP) is an individual appointed to a prominent government role, usually within the last 12 months. This can include ministers, heads of state, members of parliaments, ambassadors, senior military officers, and administrators of state-owned enterprises. Notably, the term also extends to their family members, close business associates, and beneficial owners of their assets.

According to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), there are different types of PEPs, including domestic PEPs, foreign PEPs, and those entrusted with prominent roles by state-owned enterprises or international organizations. Foreign PEPs are simultaneously considered domestic PEPs in their home countries.

Banks use various indicators to identify PEPs, including whether clients receive funds from government accounts or communicate via official government stationery. If information that identifies a client as a PEP is available—whether publicly, through registers, or via commercial databases—regulators expect banks to apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) measures.

Risks of PEPs in Banking

PEPs carry unique risks due to their potential access to public resources and influence over financial decisions. Banks working with PEPs must be vigilant of risks such as:

• Money Laundering: PEPs may try to launder money obtained through bribery or embezzlement.
• Wire Fraud: Financial crimes like wire fraud can obscure the true source and destination of funds.
• Broader Financial Crimes: PEPs might also participate in or conceal broader criminal activities, such as extortion and theft.

Because of these risks, banks need robust systems to identify, monitor, and investigate red flags associated with PEPs, ensuring they are not inadvertently aiding in economic crime.

PEP Management Regulations

There is no single, universal regulation for handling PEPs, but the 39 member nations of FATF implement standards based on FATF guidance. National legislation and international organizations also define how PEPs should be managed:

• Australia: The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) Act of 2006 requires PEP identification and additional due diligence.
• Canada: Under the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, domestic PEPs retain their status for five years post-office, while foreign PEPs retain it indefinitely.
• Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Notice 626 requires financial institutions to apply EDD to PEPs and their relatives or close associates (RCAs).
• United States: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) enforce PEP regulations through the Bank Secrecy Act and the PATRIOT Act, requiring enhanced due diligence and suspicious activity reports (SARs).

Failure to comply with these regulations can result in severe financial penalties, reputational damage, and even sanctions for banks. In extreme cases, a bank's charter may be threatened.

Challenges in PEP Screening

Screening PEPs presents several challenges for banks:

• Extended Onboarding Processes: Enhanced due diligence for PEPs can delay onboarding, especially when compliance officers must address false positives from low-quality alerts or outdated data.
• Complex Operations: EDD activities require the integration of data feeds, case management systems, and CRM tools. Without seamless integration, workflows can become slow, hindering the timely reporting of suspicious activity.
• Regulatory Differences: Variances in national regulations can lead to inconsistencies across branches, such as the differing requirements for domestic PEP screening between countries.

Best Practices for Managing PEP Risks

Banks can adopt several best practices to effectively manage and mitigate the risks of working with PEPs while preserving the customer experience:

• Maintain High-Quality Data: Banks should maintain an accurate PEP list sourced from multiple data points to help identify clients requiring PEP status.
• Screen Adverse Media: Screening for adverse media coverage helps uncover hidden risks, such as negative news stories.
• Risk-Based Approach: Banks should offer varied screening and due diligence based on each PEP’s risk profile. This approach should be dynamic, adjusting as risk factors change.
• Invest in Training: Ensuring compliance officers receive appropriate training is critical for them to confidently analyze alerts and manage compliance workflows.

Advanced PEP Screening Solutions

To efficiently manage PEP screening and AML compliance, banks need intelligent automation and workflow solutions. Key features of an effective PEP screening tool include:

• Real-Time Global Data Access: Utilizing machine learning, banks can monitor PEPs, their relatives, and close associates from more than 7,000 structured data sources worldwide.
• Entity-Based Profiles: Structured profiles capture changes in PEP risk levels, allowing compliance teams to quickly respond to changes.
• Configurable Matching Technology: Advanced screening tools can detect typos, aliases, and subtle variations while providing configurable screening parameters tailored to the institution’s risk-based approach.

Conclusion

Managing PEPs effectively is essential for ensuring compliance and preventing financial crime. With access to high-quality data, training for compliance officers, and the adoption of intelligent automation solutions, banks can mitigate the risks associated with PEPs while maintaining a positive customer experience.

‍