INFORMATION & DATA FRAMEWORK

Information & Data Frameworks

Indicator R3-1 : A mandated institution / structure / body is responsible developing and implementing a structured framework for the collection, validation, integration, and analysis of data pertaining to IFFs.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

A mandated institution / structure / body is responsible developing and implementing a structured framework for the collection, validation, integration, and analysis of data pertaining to illicit financial flows.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority level 1: The ability collect, validate and integrate and share data is critical across countries. Without this information it is not possible to investigate, analyse and curb IFFs.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is an integrated, comprehensive and structured approach across all relevant government institutions that work together to collect, validate, integrate and analyse data pertaining to •IFFs with dedicated capacity to oversee, monitor, track and trace illicit flows.
This unit is effective and efficient in providing insights to curb and tackle IFFs.

Score 2

There is an institution or unit responsible for implementing a structured approach for the collection, validation, integration, and analysis of data pertaining to IFFs.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of their efforts may vary, and there may be some areas for improvement or optimization.

Score 1

There are limited efforts or nominal presence of an institution or unit responsible for implementing a structured approach regarding data management related to IFFs.
However, these efforts are ineffective or insufficient, and the responsibilities are not adequately fulfilled.

Score 0

There is no institution or unit responsible for implementing a structured approach for the collection, validation, integration, and analysis of data pertaining to IFFs.

Indicator R3-2 : Institutions / structures/ bodies leverage their mandates to identify and access relevant data sources from financial institutions, regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate and prosecute illicit financial activities. The relevant unit is using its legislative mandatory power to identify and access relevant data and information from various sources such as financial institutions, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and revenue authorities related to illicit financial activities.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Institutions / structures/ bodies leverage their mandates to identify and access relevant data sources from financial institutions, regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate and prosecute illicit financial activities. The relevant unit is using its legislative mandatory power to identify and access relevant data and information from various sources such as financial institutions, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and revenue authorities related to illicit financial activities.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority level 1: Equally important, is the source of data and should include data from a wide number of stakeholders.

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in identifying and accessing relevant data sources related to illicit financial activities.
The evidence demonstrates a structured approach, where financial institutions, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement agencies are actively identified and accessed, ensuring comprehensive coverage of data sources.

Score 2

There are identifiable and accessible relevant data sources such as financial institutions, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement agencies.
However, there may be room for improvement in terms of fully utilizing these sources or ensuring comprehensive coverage of all potential data sources.
Here the data is not integrated or interoperable or may not be complete, timely or comprehensive.

Score 1

There is limited or partial identification and access to relevant data sources.
While some efforts might have been made, they are ineffective or insufficient, and not all the necessary data sources have been identified or accessed.

Score 0

Data sources (such as financial institutions, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement agencies) for gathering data related to illicit financial activities are not identified and are not accessible.
There is no evidence or indication of any effort made to access these sources.

Scoring Criteria

Indicator R3-3 : A mandated institution / structure / body is responsible developing and implementing a structured framework for the collection, validation, integration, and analysis of data pertaining to IFFs.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The collected data undergoes a validation process to ensure its completeness, accuracy, reliability, and integrity. This involves verifying the authenticity of the data, checking for completeness, and resolving any discrepancies or errors.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: This is an important part of the data mining process. Without validation the detection and invesgitation process is fraught with errors.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in validating the collected data for accuracy, reliability, and integrity.
The evidence demonstrates that robust processes are in place to verify authenticity, ensure completeness, and resolve any discrepancies or errors in the data.

Score 2

There are identifiable processes or procedures in place to validate the collected data.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes may vary, and there might be room for improvement in terms of ensuring comprehensive validation and addressing discrepancies or errors.

Score 1

There are limited or partial validation of the collected data.
While some efforts might have been made, they are ineffective or insufficient in ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the data.
Authenticity verification, completeness checks, and discrepancy resolution may be lacking or inadequate.

Score 0

The collected data is not validated for accuracy, reliability, and integrity.
There is no evidence or indication of any effort made to verify the authenticity, completeness, or resolve discrepancies or errors in the data.

Indicator R3-4 : The validated data is integrated into a secure system or database, where it can be stored, updated, organized, and accessed by relevant authorities for further analysis. This step may involve standardizing data formats, mapping data elements, and establishing linkages between different data sets.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The validated data is integrated into a secure system or database, where it can be stored, updated, organized, and accessed by relevant authorities for further analysis. This step may involve standardizing data formats, mapping data elements, and establishing linkages between different data sets.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: The data needs to be accessible

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in integrating validated data into a centralized or interoperable system or database.
The evidence demonstrates that robust processes are in place to standardize data formats, map data elements, and establish linkages between different data sets.

Score 2

There are limited or partial integration of validated data into a centralized system or database.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes may vary, and there is room for improvement in terms of standardization, data mapping, or establishing comprehensive centralised or interoperable linkages.

Score 1

There are identifiable processes or procedures in place to integrate validated data into a centralized or interoperable system or database.
While some efforts might have been made, they are ineffective or insufficient in terms of standardizing data formats, mapping data elements, or establishing linkages between different data sets.

Score 0

Validated data is not integrated into a centralized or interoperable system or database.
There is no evidence or indication of any effort made to store, organize, or access the validated data for further analysis.

Indicator R3-5 : Institution / structure / body is mandated to identify and analyse risk areas in IFFs for policy and investigation purposes

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Institution / structure / body is mandated to identify and analyse risk areas in illicit Financial Flows for policy and investigation purposes

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1:important to identify risky areas

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in properly analyzing the centralized or interoperable data for identifying risk areas in IFFs.
The evidence demonstrates robust protocols/rules and regulations that effectively utilize the data for policy purposes and flagging firms or individuals involved in suspicious activities for further investigation.

Score 2

There are identifiable processes or procedures in place to properly analyze the centralized or interoperable data for identifying risk areas in IFFs.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes vary, and there is room for improvement in terms of policy purposes or flagging suspicious activities comprehensively.

Score 1

There is limited or partial analysis of the centralized or interoperable data for identifying risk areas in IFFs.
While some efforts might have been made, they are ineffective or insufficient in terms of policy purposes or flagging suspicious activities for investigation.

Score 0

The centralized or interoperable data is not properly analyzed the for identifying risk areas in IFFs.
There is no evidence or indication of any effort made to utilize the data for policy purposes or flagging suspicious activities.

Indicator R3-6 : Utilize internationally recognized unique identification numbers for seamless data exchange and integration across various domestic and international systems and platforms.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Utilize internationally recognized unique identification numbers for seamless data exchange and integration across various domestic and international systems and platforms.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: This is imperative to inform the sharing of information across borders, cross countries as this is the biggest gap in addressing MNEs and international BOs

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The unique identification numbers assigned are in compliance with internationally recognized standards and guidelines.
The usage of these identification numbers aligns with established best practices and ensures interoperability and compatibility with global systems.

Score 2

The unique identification numbers assigned generally adhere to internationally recognized standards and guidelines, although there may be occasional deviations or room for improvement.
The usage of these identification numbers demonstrates some alignment with established best practices, but there may be areas where further consistency or compliance is needed.
There is a moderate level of interoperability and compatibility with global systems, but there could be potential for enhancing these aspects.

Score 1

•The unique identification numbers assigned show limited compliance with internationally recognized standards and guidelines.
The usage of these identification numbers deviates from established best practices and may require significant improvements to ensure better alignment.
There is limited interoperability and compatibility with global systems, and substantial efforts are needed to enhance these aspects.

Score 0

The unique identification numbers assigned lack compliance with internationally recognized standards and guidelines.
The usage of these unique identification numbers significantly deviates from established best practices, hindering interoperability and compatibility with global systems.
There are no measures in place to address these shortcomings, and substantial changes are necessary to achieve compliance and alignment with international standards.

Indicator R3-7 : Information sharing platforms are secure and timely to ensure the confidential and protected exchange of information.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Information sharing platforms are secure and timely to ensure the confidential and protected exchange of information.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: This is a secondary issue related to the security of the data and the ability to share confidential information. Without this, it is not possible to share information between government, but having mechanisms in place to share information is more important.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in establishing secure information sharing platforms for governments.
The evidence demonstrates that these platforms effectively foster collaboration among relevant stakeholders and ensure the confidential and protected exchange of information in the context of IFFs.

Score 2

There are identifiable secure information sharing platforms for governments in the context of IFFs.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of these platforms may vary, and there is room for improvement in terms of ensuring comprehensive collaboration among stakeholders and maintaining confidentiality.

Score 1

There are limited or partial establishment of secure information sharing platforms for governments.
While some efforts might have been made, they are ineffective or insufficient, and the platforms do not adequately ensure confidential and protected exchange of information.

Score 0

There is no secure information sharing platforms for governments in the context of IFFs
There is no evidence or indication of any effort made to create such platforms.

Indicator R3-8 : Utilise advanced analytics tools for data processing and analysis of IFFs

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Utilise advanced analytics tools for data processing and analysis of illicit financial flows

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 2: This is dependent on R3-1, R3-2, R3-3, R3-4, R3-5, and 3-6.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in using advanced analytics tools for data cleaning, processing and analysis.
There is demonstrated that these tools are effectively employed to enable sophisticated analysis, aiding in the identification of patterns, anomalies, trends and identifying instances (potential cases) of IFFs

Score 2

There is limited or partial utilization of dvanced analytics tools for data processing and analysis.
While some efforts might have been made, they are ineffective or insufficient in effectively identifying patterns, anomalies, and trends associated with illicit financial activities.

Score 1

There is identifiable utilization of advanced analytics tools for data processing and analysis.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of these tools in identifying patterns, anomalies, and trends associated with illicit financial activities may vary, and there is room for improvement in their application.

Score 0

Advanced analytics tools for data processing and analysis are not utilized in the context of IFFs analysis.
There is no evidence or indication of any effort made to employ these tools to aid in the identification of patterns, anomalies, and trends associated with illicit financial activities."

Indicator R3-9 : Tax and financial records in a timely and accurate manner.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Tax and financial records in a timely and accurate manner.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: This is secondary to R3-2, referring to the type of data from institution.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in collecting, validating, integrating, and analyzing tax and financial records (by tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) in a timely and accurate manner.
This includes the tax and financial records for individuals, businesses, corporate arrangements, and other entities: income; expenses; deductions; credits; and tax payments.
The information is maintained, up to date and accurate.
The information is analysed on a quarterly basis to highlight patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs

Score 2

Tax and financial records (by tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed in an adhoc manner.
This includes the tax and financial records for individuals, businesses, corporate arrangements, and other entities: country by country income; expenses; deductions; credits; and tax payments.
The information is analysed on an annual basis to highlight patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 1

There is limited or partial collection, validation, integration, and analysis of tax and financial records.
The information is analysed on an an adhoc basis or is ineffective or insufficient in gaining insights and understanding patterns, trends, or anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 0

Tax and financial records are not collected or validated or integrated or analysed to gain insights into IFFs. "

Indicator R3-10 : Financial transaction records are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Financial transaction records are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: This is secondary to R3-2, referring to the type of data from institution.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

"There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in collecting, validating, integrating, and analyzing tax records.
The evidence demonstrates that these processes are systematically executed regarding the collection, validation, integration and analysis of financial transactions records, leading to meaningful insights and a comprehensive understanding of patterns, trends, and anomalies related to financial activities.

Score 2

There are identifiable processes or procedures in place for the collection, validation, integration, and analysis of tax records.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes may vary, and there is room for improvement in terms of gaining comprehensive insights and understanding patterns, trends, or anomalies.

Score 1

There is limited or partial collection, validation, integration, and analysis of tax records.
•While some efforts might have been made, they are ineffective or insufficient in gaining insights and understanding patterns, trends, or anomalies related to financial activities.

Score 0

Tax records are not collected, validated, and intergrated, and anayalized to gain insights into financial activities.
There is no evidence or indication of any effort made to utilize tax records for understanding patterns, trends, or anomalies."

Indicator R3-11 : Beneficiary Ownership Information are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Beneficiary Ownership Information are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: This is secondary to R3-2, referring to the type of data from institution.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in collecting, validating, integrating, and analyzing beneficial ownership information (by tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) in a timely and accurate manner.
This includes the beneficial ownership records for individuals and their businesses, corporate arrangements, and other entities identifying the natural person.
The information is maintained, up to date and accurate.
The information is analysed on a quarterly basis to highlight patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 2

Beneficial ownership information (by tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed in an adhoc manner.
This includes the beneficial ownership for individuals and their businesses, corporate arrangements, and other entities identifying the natural person.
The information is analysed on an annual basis to highlight patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 1

There is limited or partial collection, validation, integration, and analysis of beneficial ownership information.
The information is analysed on an adhoc basis or is ineffective or insufficient in gaining insights and understanding patterns, trends, or anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 0

Financial transaction records are not collected or validated or integrated or analysed to gain insights into IFFs.

Indicator R3-12 : Cross-Border activities and tansactions and value of goods (especially trade and investment) are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Cross-Border activities and tansactions and value of goods (especially trade and investment) are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: This is secondary to R3-2, referring to the type of data from institution.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in collecting, validating, integrating, and analyzing cross border activities and transactions (collected by central banks and shared with tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) in a timely and accurate manner.
This includes the cross-border transaction for individuals, businesses, corporate arrangements, and other entities including inflows and outflows (receipts of payments) of capital, investments, dividends, portfolio investments, goods and services, gifts and donations, pension funds.
The information is maintained, up to date and accurate.
The information is analysed on a quarterly basis to highlight understand patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 2

Cross-border transactions (collected by central banks and shared with tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed in an adhoc manner.
This includes the cross-border activities and transactions for individuals, businesses, corporate arrangements, and other entities including inflows and outflows (receipts or payments) of capital, investments, dividends, portfolio investments, goods and services, gifts and donations, pension-related receipts and payments.
The information is analysed on an annual basis to highlight patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs

Score 1

There is limited or partial collection, validation, integration, and analysis of cross-border transactions.
The information is analysed on an an adhoc basis or is ineffective or insufficient in gaining insights and understanding patterns, trends, or anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 0

SCross-border transactions are not collected or validated or integrated or analysed to gain insights into IFFs.

Indicator R3-13 : Custom data are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Custom data are collected, validated, integrated, and analyzed.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

This is secondary to R3-2, referring to the type of data from institution.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is a high level of effectiveness and proficiency in collecting, validating, integrating, and analyzing cross border activities and transactions (collected by customs and shared with tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) in a timely and accurate manner.
This includes information on value, quantity, units, unit price, origin and destination country of goods and services.
The information is maintained, up to date and accurate. The information is analysed on a quarterly basis to highlight understand patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 2

Cross-border transactions (collected by customs and shared with tax authorities, law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units) in a timely and accurate manner.
This includes information on value, quantity, units, unit price, origin and destination country of goods and services.
The information is analysed on an annual basis to highlight patterns, trends, and anomalies related to IFFs

Score 1

There is limited or partial collection, validation, integration, and analysis of custom data.
The information is analysed on an an adhoc basis or is ineffective or insufficient in gaining insights and understanding patterns, trends, or anomalies related to IFFs.

Score 0

Custom data not collected or validated or integrated or analysed to gain insights into IFFs. "

Information & Data Frameworks Country Assessment Reports

Overview Indicators Assessment
Detailed Country Indicators Assessment

Please note that the data currently displayed on the Anti-IFFs Policy Tracker is randomly generated for demonstration and illustrative purposes only. The actual assessments and data gathered through our rigorous methodology may vary and will be updated accordingly once the complete evaluation process is conducted.