INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Institutional Frameworks

Indicator R2-1 : The country has an existing institution with the authority / structures / body to implement a national anti-IFF strategy, monitors and evaluates the strategy and improves upon outcomes..

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has an existing institution with the authority / structures / body to implement a national anti-IFF strategy, monitors and evaluates the strategy and improves upon outcomes..

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: A national strategy on IFFs ensures that the government departments are working together to address IFFs. The strategy is imperative in ensuring alignment between government entities.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

There is demonstrated evidence of an institution that has the authority and mandate to establish and enforce the implementation of a national Anti-IFF strategy.
An Anti-IFF Strategy has been developed and approved by Cabinet.
The institution has exhaustive inter-agency coordination and collaboration capacity and capability in the implementation of the strategy to tackle tax-related IFFs (with sufficient and well resourced financial, human and technical capabilities to implement the strategy).

Score 2

There is demonstrated evidence of an institution that has the authority and mandate to establish and enforce the implementation of a national Anti-IFF strategy.
An Anti-IFF Strategy has been developed and approved by Cabinet.

Score 1

There is demonstrated evidence of an institution that has the authority and mandate to establish and enforce the implementation of a national Anti-IFF strategy.

Score 0

No law or organisational arrangement exists that establishes an institution responsible for developing and enforcing the implementation of a National Anti-IFF Strategy

Indicator R2-2 : The country has established mechanisms, through a dedicated institution, to monitor the implementation of an anti-IFF M&E Strategy that measures and evaluates the effectiveness to address IFFs.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has established mechanisms, through a dedicated institution, to monitor the implementation of an anti-IFF M&E Strategy that measures and evaluates the effectiveness to address IFFs.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: Equally important is the need to track progress on implementing the strategy, with dedicated mechanisms to monitor, measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the policies.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The country has appointed a dedicated institution to monitor, track and evaluate the implementation of anti-IFF measures effectively. The institution has developed an IFF M&E Strategy. The institution has established complete and functioning mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the implementation of anti-IFF measures effectively.
The country demonstrates a systematic approach to monitoring outcomes, identifying gaps, and making necessary adjustments to improve the effectiveness of anti-IFF measures.
This includes regular and consistent quarterly reporting and compilation of trends assessing the impact and size of IFFs, and putting measures to address and curb IFFs.

Score 2

The country has appointed a dedicated institution to monitor, track and evaluate the implementation of anti-IFF measures effectively. The institution has developed an IFF M&E Strategy.
The institution has established mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the implementation of anti-IFF measures.
The country demonstrates ability to monitoring outcomes, identifying gaps, and making necessary adjustments to improve the effectiveness of anti-IFF measures.
This includes annual reporting on the M&E strategy and/or compilation of trends assessing the impact and size of IFFs, and/or putting measures to address and curb IFFs.

Score 1

The country has either identified an institution responsible for monitoring M&E or developing the M&E strategy.
There is an M&E strategy in place to monitor and track IFFs and the impact and outcomes thereof, but to date, no reports have been compiled.

Score 0

The country has no dedicated institution to monitor IFFs nor does it have an anti-IFF M&E strategy.

Indicator R3-3 : The country has established mechanisms for cooperation and coordination among relevant government departments, agencies, and stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation of the national anti-IFF strategy.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has established mechanisms for cooperation and coordination among relevant government departments, agencies, and stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation of the national anti-IFF strategy.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: Insitutional cooperation is imperative in curbing IFFs. This involves sharing of information and joint investigations to ensure that country governments are not being exploited by latent weaknesses with partner countries (tax/trade etc.)

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The country has established robust mechanisms for cooperation and coordination among relevant government departments, agencies, and stakeholders.
There is a structured framework that facilitates seamless collaboration, information sharing, and joint efforts.
Information sharing processes are well defined and access to information is available within 6 to 8 weeks.

Score 2

The country has established mechanisms for cooperation and coordination among relevant government departments, agencies, and stakeholders to a reasonable extent.
Involved/participating stakeholders demonstrate a moderate level of engagement and cooperation, enhancing the effectiveness of anti-IFF measures.
In this instance, there isnt seamless coordination and collaboration or complete information sharing and joint collaboration efforts. Here processes are in place to collaborate and share information, however, the information is shared 9 to 24 weeks from the time the request is issued.

Score 1

The country has initiated some mechanisms for cooperation and coordination, but they are limited in scope or effectiveness.
There may be sporadic collaboration, ad-hoc information sharing (or information sharing procesess are complex, timely with delayed access to information with information accessible more than 6 months after request), or partial involvement of stakeholders.
The country's approach to cooperation and coordination lacks a comprehensive framework and may not fully leverage the collective efforts of relevant entities.

Score 0

The country lacks any effective mechanisms for cooperation and coordination among relevant government departments, agencies, and stakeholders. There is limited or no structured collaboration, information sharing, or joint efforts to combat IFFs.

Indicator R2-4 : Institution/ structure / body responsible for investing in capacity building programs on IFFs to enhance the skills and knowledge of government officials involved in implementing anti-IFF measures.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Institution/ structure / body responsible for investing in capacity building programs on IFFs to enhance the skills and knowledge of government officials involved in implementing anti-IFF measures.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: Skills are critical in being able to implement strategies and policies to curb IFFs. Without the capacity building efforts it is not possible to curb IFFs.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The institution demonstrates a strong commitment to investing in (several) capacity building programs to enhance the skills and knowledge of government officials involved in implementing anti-IFF measures with demonstrated evidence of the officials putting to use their training to track, trace and recover IFFs.
There is a comprehensive, well-structured and properly funded approach to training and professional development with adequate budgetary allocations, including specialized courses, advanced workshops, and opportunities for networking and knowledge sharing.
The investment reflects a high priority placed on building the expertise and capabilities of officials in effectively addressing IFFs.

Score 2

The institution invests a reasonable amount in a few capacity building programs to enhance the skills and knowledge of government officials involved in implementing anti-IFF measures.
There are regular training initiatives, workshops, or educational opportunities provided to strengthen their capabilities. The investment demonstrates a moderate commitment to improving the expertise and competencies of officials addressing IFFs.
Here the training programs are regular but not integrated and fully funded within and across the government systems.

Score 1

The institution provides some investment in capacity building programs, but it remains limited in scope or effectiveness.
There may be occasional training sessions or workshops, but the overall investment in enhancing the skills and knowledge of government
officials in combating IFFs is adhoc or inadequate.
There is room for improvement in terms of the comprehensiveness and depth of the capacity building initiatives.

Score 0

The institution does not invest in capacity building programs to enhance the skills and knowledge of government officials involved in implementing anti-IFF measures.
There are limited or no training initiatives, workshops, or professional development opportunities provided to enhance their capabilities in addressing IFFs.

Indicator R2-5 : Engagement with relevant stakeholders, such as civil society organizations, private sector entities, and international partners, to gather input, exchange best practices, and enhance the implementation of anti-IFF measures.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

Engagement with relevant stakeholders, such as civil society organizations, private sector entities, and international partners, to gather input, exchange best practices, and enhance the implementation of anti-IFF measures.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 2: This enhances capacity and skills development and is linked to/augments R2-4

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The institution demonstrates a strong commitment to engaging with relevant stakeholders, such as civil society organizations, private sector entities, and international partners, in gathering input, exchanging best practices, and enhancing the implementation of anti-IFF measures.
There are effective mechanisms for stakeholder engagement, including regular consultations, partnerships, and joint initiatives.
The engagement fosters a collaborative environment, leverages diverse expertise, and ensures effective implementation of anti-IFF measures through stakeholder collaboration.

Score 2

The institution actively engages with relevant stakeholders, including civil society organizations, private sector entities, and international partners, to gather input, exchange best practices, and enhance the implementation of anti-IFF measures.
There are established channels or platforms for stakeholder engagement, regular consultations, and collaboration to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach.
The engagement demonstrates a moderate commitment to incorporating stakeholder perspectives and expertise.

Score 1

The institution engages with some relevant stakeholders to gather input and exchange limited best practices.
However, the engagement may be sporadic or adhoc or limited in scope or not comprehensive enough to capture the diverse perspectives and expertise of stakeholders.
There is room for improvement in terms of the depth and breadth of stakeholder engagement for anti-IFF measures.

Score 0

The institution has limited or no engagement with relevant stakeholders, such as civil society organizations, private sector entities, and international partners, regarding anti-IFF measures.
There is minimal input gathered, and there are no established mechanisms for exchanging best practices or enhancing implementation through stakeholder collaboration."

Indicator R2-6 : The country has the institutional capacity and independence to detect tax-related IFFs

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has the institutional capacity and independence to detect tax-related IFFs

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: The staffing, structures and policies to detect tax-related IFFs is critical in curbing IFFs. Tax is a critical component of tax related IFFs.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The country demonstrates a high level of institutional capacity to detect tax-related IFFs. It possesses comprehensive resources, expertise, and well-established structures that facilitate effective detections.
The detecting institutions operate with complete independence, ensuring an objective and impartial approach in addressing tax-related illicit financial activities and there exists information on number of potential cases to be investigated.

Score 2

The country possesses a moderate level of institutional capacity to detect tax-related IFFs, but there is room for improvement in terms of capacity and independence to achieve more robust and objective detections.
There are dedicated resources, expertise, and well-established structures, enabling detection. Here there might not be adequate capacity or resources, or the information required is delayed in being made available to the detecting institutions.

Score 1

The country has some institutional capacity to detect tax-related IFFs, but it is insufficient to handle complex cases comprehensively.
The independence of detective institutions may be compromised, potentially hindering objective detections.

Score 0

The country lacks the institutional capacity and independence necessary to detect tax-related IFFs effectively.
There are significant limitations in terms of resources, expertise, and autonomy."

Indicator R2-7 : The country has the institutional capacity and independence to investigate tax-related IFFs

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has the institutional capacity and independence to investigate tax-related IFFs

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: This is very important part of the value chain and this capacity and skill is imperative.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The country demonstrates a high level of institutional capacity to investigate tax-related IFFs.
It possesses comprehensive resources, expertise, and well-established structures that facilitate effective investigations.
The investigative institutions operate with complete independence, ensuring an objective and impartial approach in addressing tax-related illicit financial activities and there exists information on number of investigated cases.

Score 2

The country possesses a moderate level of institutional capacity to investigate tax-related IFFs.
It has dedicated resources, expertise, and well-established structures, enabling competent investigations.
The investigative institutions operate with a reasonable degree of independence, ensuring a relatively impartial and objective approach to address tax-related illicit financial activities.
Here there might not be adequate capacity or resources, or the information required is delayed in being made available to the investigating institutions.

Score 1

The country has some institutional capacity to investigate tax-related IFFs, but it is insufficient to handle complex cases comprehensively.
The independence of investigative institutions may be compromised to some extent, potentially hindering objective investigations.

Score 0

The country lacks the institutional capacity and independence necessary to investigate tax-related IFFs effectively.
There are significant limitations in terms of resources, expertise, and autonomy.

Indicator R2-8 : The country has the institutional capacity and independence to successfully/effectively prosecute and enforce tax-related IFFs

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has the institutional capacity and independence to successfully/effectively prosecute and enforce tax-related IFFs

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: This is very important part of the value chain and this capacity and skill is imperative. Analysis and investigation without prosecution is a futile exercise.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The country demonstrates a high level of institutional capacity to prosecute tax-related IFFs.
It possesses comprehensive resources, expertise, and well-established structures that facilitate effective prosecutions.
The prosecutive institutions operate with complete independence, ensuring an objective and impartial approach in addressing tax-related illicit financial activities and there exists information on number of prosecuted cases.

Score 2

The country possesses a moderate level of institutional capacity to prosecute tax-related IFFs. It has dedicated resources, expertise, and structures in place, allowing for adequate prosecutions.
The prosecutive institutions maintain a reasonable level of independence, ensuring a relatively objective approach.
Here there might not be adequate capacity or resources, or the information required is delayed in being made available to the prosecuting institutions.

Score 1

The country has some institutional capacity to prosecute tax-related IFFs, but it is insufficient to handle complex cases comprehensively.
The independence of prosecutive institutions may be compromised to some extent, potentially hindering objective prosecutions.

Score 0

The country lacks the institutional capacity and independence necessary to prosecute tax-related IFFs effectively.
There are significant limitations in terms of resources, expertise, and autonomy.

Indicator R2-9 : The country has the capacity and capability to recover (and repatriate) stolen assets/tax-related IFFs after adjudication or determination by a court of competent jurisdiction

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has the capacity and capability to recover (and repatriate) stolen assets/tax-related IFFs after adjudication or determination by a court of competent jurisdiction

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 1: This is very important part of the value chain and this capacity and skill is imperative. Analysis and investigation without prosecution is a futile exercise.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The country demonstrates a high level of institutional capacity to recover tax-related IFFs. It possesses comprehensive resources, expertise, and well-established structures that facilitate effective recoveries.
The recovering institutionsfunction and guarantee an an objective and impartial approach in addressing tax-related illicit financial activities.

Score 2

The country possesses a moderate level of institutional capacity to recover tax-related IFFs.
It has dedicated resources, expertise, and structures in place, allowing for adequate recoveries. The recovering institutions maintain a reasonable level of independence, ensuring a relatively objective approach.
Here there might not be adequate capacity or resources, or the information required is delayed in being made available to the institutions responsible for recovereing assets, or there is a lack of independence of these institutions.

Score 1

The country has some institutional capacity to recover tax-related IFFs, but it is insufficient to handle complex cases comprehensively.
The independence of recover institutions may be compromised to some extent, potentially hindering objective recovers.

Score 0

The country lacks the institutional capacity and independence necessary to recover tax-related IFFs effectively.
There are significant limitations in terms of resources, expertise, and autonomy.

Indicator R2-10 : The government has established effective mechanisms for engaging with multinational enterprises (MNEs) in order to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The government has established effective mechanisms for engaging with multinational enterprises (MNEs) in order to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: While this is very important it should inlcuded in the tax detection and investigation including analysis, detection and investigation as well as in monitoring and analysis.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The government has implemented robust and effective mechanisms for engagement with MNEs, using its established comprehensive policies, regulations, and measures to reduce tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, having successfully implemented penalties and recouped tax revenues due to them.

Score 2

The government has implemented mechanisms for engagement with MNEs using its established policies, regulations, and measures to reduce tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, to address tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance to reduce the effects of IFFs by imposing penalties, or trying to recoup tax revenues, however, these monies have not been received within 6 months of instituting the claim stability.

Score 1

The government has implemented mechanisms for engagement with MNEs, but their implementation remains limited in the ability to impose penalties and recoup tax revenues due to them.

Score 0

The government has not implemented any mechanisms for engagement with MNEs to address tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Indicator R2-11 : The government established effective mechanisms to identify High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) in order to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The government established effective mechanisms to identify High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) in order to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: While this is very important it should inlcuded in the analysis, detection and investigation as well as in monitoring and analysis.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The government has implemented robust mechanisms to identify HNWIs, using its established comprehensive policies, regulations, and measures assist in reducing tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, having successfully implemented penalties and recouped tax revenues.

Score 2

The government has implemented mechanims to identify HNWIs using the relevant policies, regulations, and measures, to address tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance by imposing penalties, or trying to recoup tax revenues,
However, these monies have not been received within 6 months of instituting the claims.

Score 1

The government has initiated some mechanisms for constructive engagement with HNWIs, but their implementation remains limited.

Score 0

The government has not any mechanisms to identify HNWIs to address tax evasion, curb tax avoidance, or reduce the effects of IFFs.
There is a lack of comprehensive policies, regulations, or enforcement measures, resulting in minimal progress.

Indicator R2-12 : The government established effective mechanisms to identify Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) in order to in order to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The government established effective mechanisms to identify Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) in order to in order to combat tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Priority Level 3: While this is very important it should inlcuded in the analysis, detection and investigation as well as in monitoring and analysis.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

The government has implemented robust mechanisms for constructive engagement with PEPs.
It has established comprehensive policies, regulations, and measures that effectively eliminate tax evasion, curb tax avoidance, and significantly reduce the adverse effects of IFFs on economic, political, and social stability.

Score 2

The government has implemented mechanisms for constructive engagement with PEPs to address tax evasion, curb tax avoidance, and reduce the effects of IFFs.
It has enacted relevant policies, regulations, and measures, and has made reasonable progress in combating IFFs and promoting stability.

Score 1

The government has initiated some mechanisms for constructive engagement with PEPs, but their implementation remains limited.
There may be gaps in policies, regulations, or measures to effectively tackle tax evasion, tax avoidance, and the adverse effects of IFFs.

Score 0

The government has not implemented sufficient mechanisms for constructive engagement with PEPs to address tax evasion, curb tax avoidance, or reduce the effects of IFFs.
There is a lack of comprehensive policies, regulations, or enforcement measures, resulting in minimal progress.

Institutional 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.