” in order to avoid greylisting status. This has brought the legitimacy of FATF’s work into question as it exclusively attends to deficiencies in
anti-money laundering and counterterrorism funding legal frameworks, entirely indifferent to the squeezing ofWhether states have mandated legislative changes in compliance with FATF recommendations as a cover for the overregulation of civil society or as a genuine but heavy-handed attempt to avoid economic exclusion, the FATF should not only acknowledge its role but be compelled to speak out when human rights violations follow. This responsibility flows from the nature of the relationship which develops once the threat of being greylisted occurs. The country in question is placed under increased monitoring by the FATF which then works closely with it to rectify identified deficiencies.
Criticism against FATF recommendations and their effects are not new, with a global coordinated response from civil society resulting in the FATF announcing that implicated states should respect human rights and undertake a risk-based assessment. However, simply issuing such a statement is not sufficient and the FATF cannot claim to be an innocent bystander when states enact draconian legislation purportedly to meet FATF requirements.
In the past year alone, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa have engaged in legislative processes which threaten the freedoms of civil society in order to find favour with the FATF, with only South Africa ultimately back-pedalling.