INTER-AGENCY COOPERATION FRAMEWORK

Inter-Agency Cooperation Frameworks

Indicator R4-1 :The country has in place comprehensive and effective mechanisms for inter-agency coordination and collaboration for the exchange of information to tackle tax-related IFFs (e.g., UN tax resolutions, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD African Initiative, etc. )

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has in place comprehensive and effective mechanisms for inter-agency coordination and collaboration for the exchange of information to tackle tax-related IFFs (e.g., UN tax resolutions, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD African Initiative, etc. )

Weight

Weighting Rationale

This indicator is crucial as it deals with the exchange of information, which is foundational in tackling tax-related IFFs. However, it's one of several important aspects, hence the balanced weight.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

(Exhaustive Coordination with Comprehensive Capabilities)

Demonstrated exhaustive inter-agency coordination and collaboration with legal authority for the automatic exchange of detailed information to tackle tax-related IFFs.
Backed by sufficient and well-resourced human and technical capabilities.

Score 2

(Effective Coordination with Some Limitations)

Evident inter-agency coordination and collaboration in the exchange of information to address tax-related IFFs.
Presence of limited human and technical capabilities, indicating some constraints in operational effectiveness.

Score 1

(Basic Coordination and Collaboration)

Basic level of inter-agency coordination and collaboration in information exchange for tax-related IFFs.
Lacks comprehensive resources or advanced mechanisms but demonstrates initial efforts

Score 0

(No Coordination or Collaboration)

No evidence of inter-agency coordination and collaboration in the exchange of information for tackling tax-related IFFs.
Absence of efforts or resources dedicated to this aspect."

Indicator R4-2 : The country has in place a comprehensive and effective mechanisms for inter-agency coordination and collaboration for the exchange of information to tackle CUSTOMS-related IFFs (e.g., UN tax resolutions, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD African Initiative, etc. )activities.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has in place a comprehensive and effective mechanisms for inter-agency coordination and collaboration for the exchange of information to tackle CUSTOMS-related IFFs (e.g., UN tax resolutions, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD African Initiative, etc. )

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Similar in importance to R4-1 but focuses on customs-related IFFs. It's equally important due to its role in preventing trade-based money laundering and misinvoicing.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

(Exhaustive Coordination with Timely and Detailed Exchange)

Demonstrated exhaustive inter-agency coordination and collaboration with legal authority for the timely exchange of detailed information specifically targeting customs-related IFFs, such as trade misinvoicing and trade-based money laundering-TBML.
Backed by sufficient and well-resourced human and technical capabilities.

Score 2

(Effective Coordination with Some Limitations)

Evident inter-agency coordination and collaboration in exchanging information to address customs-related IFFs.
Presence of limited human and technical capabilities, indicating some constraints in operational effectiveness.

Score 1

(Basic Coordination and Collaboration)

Basic level of inter-agency coordination and collaboration in information exchange targeting customs-related IFFs.
Lacks comprehensive resources or advanced mechanisms but demonstrates initial efforts.

Score 0

(No Coordination or Collaboration)

No evidence of inter-agency coordination and collaboration in exchanging information for tackling customs-related IFFs.
Absence of dedicated efforts or resources."

Indicator R4-3 : The country has in place mechanisms for multilateral exchange of information between competent authorities (i.e., Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, UN Resolution)

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has in place mechanisms for multilateral exchange of information between competent authorities (i.e., Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, UN Resolution)

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Given its broader scope, encompassing multilateral agreements and international cooperation, this indicator is pivotal in the global fight against IFFs.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

(Advanced and Detailed Multilateral Exchange):

Demonstrated high-level inter-agency cooperation with legal authority for the timely and detailed multilateral exchange of information across borders specifically targeting tax-related IFFs.
Evidence of proactive, comprehensive, and efficient information sharing mechanisms.

Score 2

(Formalized Multilateral Cooperation)

Formalized high-level inter-agency cooperation for the exchange of information across borders.
Demonstrates operational effectiveness but may lack timeliness or detail compared to Score 3.

Score 1

(Commitment to Multilateral Cooperation)

Commitment to inter-agency cooperation for information exchange, indicating initial stages of establishing multilateral mechanisms.
Lacks full operationalization or detailed frameworks.

Score 0

(No Multilateral Cooperation)

No evidence of inter-agency cooperation for the exchange of information across borders to tackle tax-related IFFs.

Indicator R4-4 : The country has in place mechanisms for interagency cooperation to support the administration and implementation of assessment/evaluation of tax incentives (e.g., tax administration, Ministry of finance, and national statistics office could pursue interagency collaboration to allow access to such information)

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has in place mechanisms for interagency cooperation to support the administration and implementation of assessment/evaluation of tax incentives (e.g., tax administration, Ministry of finance, and national statistics office could pursue interagency collaboration to allow access to such information)

Weight

Weighting Rationale

While important, the focus on tax incentives is more specific and slightly narrower in scope compared to the exchange of information indicators.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

(Comprehensive and Mandatory Evaluation)

Demonstrated interagency cooperation with legal authority for the administration and implementation of mandatory, regular assessment/evaluation/Cost-benefit Analysis (CBA) for both proposed and existing tax incentives.
Evidence of a structured, comprehensive approach to evaluating the impact and efficiency of tax incentives.

Score 2

(Mandatory Evaluation for Proposed Incentives)

Evident interagency cooperation supporting mandatory assessment/evaluation/CBA for proposed tax incentives.
Indicates a proactive approach, though limited to new proposals without regular review of existing incentives.

Score 1

(Commitment to Evaluation)

Commitment to interagency cooperation for the assessment/evaluation/CBA of tax incentives.
Indicates initial stages of establishing evaluation mechanisms, without full implementation.

Score 0

(No Cooperation for Evaluation)

No evidence of interagency cooperation for the administration and implementation of assessment/evaluation/CBA of tax incentives.

Indicator R4-5 : The country has in place mechanisms for interagency coordination and cooperation to support the collection and accessibility of money laundering data to tackle tax-related IFFs (e.g. engagement between tax and customs authorities, FIUs, law enforcement authorities, national prosecuting authorities, etc.)

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has in place mechanisms for interagency cooperation to support the collection and accessibility of money laundering data to tackle tax-related IFFs (e.g. engagement between tax and customs authorities, FIUs, law enforcement authorities, national prosecuting authorities, etc.)

Weight

Weighting Rationale

This indicator is critical due to its direct impact on identifying and tackling money laundering, a major component of IFFs. The weight reflects its strategic importance in enforcement and legal proceedings.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

(Formalized, Timely, and Secure Information Sharing)

Demonstrated formalized and structural inter-agency cooperation and coordination through MOUs or legal structures between relevant agencies to facilitate money laundering investigations.
Information shared is detailed, within 12 weeks from the request, without legal barriers, and in a secure, tamper-proof manner.

Score 2

(Formalized Cooperation with Extended Timeframe)

Formalized and structural cooperation and coordination as in Score 3.
Information sharing timeframe between 13 and 24 weeks, with secure and tamper-proof handling.

Score 1

(Commitment to Cooperation with Barriers)

Evidence of commitment to inter-agency cooperation, but with legal barriers hindering information sharing.
Existence of MOUs, but information is not securely shared or is not tamper-proof. Early stages of developing a FF risk profile.

Score 0

(No Formal Cooperation for Data Collection)

No evidence of formal inter-agency cooperation and coordination.
Absence of MOUs or structures for supporting data collection and access related to money laundering.

Indicator R4-6 : The country has established effective inter-agency cooperation mechanisms at both international and regional levels to address tax-related illicit financial flows (IFFs).

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has established effective inter-agency cooperation mechanisms at both international and regional levels to address tax-related illicit financial flows (IFFs).

Weight

Weighting Rationale

International and regional cooperation is key, but this indicator complements the other more direct action-focused indicators. Hence, it receives a weight that reflects its supporting yet important role.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

(Comprehensive and Proactive Cooperation)

Demonstrated evidence of exhaustive and effective formalized inter-agency cooperation at both international and regional levels to tackle tax-related IFFs.
Established legal frameworks and mechanisms for proactive and reactive measures.
Regular, documented instances of coordinated operations, joint investigations, or intelligence sharing.
Evidence of successful outcomes or impacts from these cooperative efforts.

Score 2

(Established but Limited Scope or Effectiveness)

Formalized inter-agency cooperation at either the international or regional level to tackle tax-related IFFs.
Legal frameworks and authority are in place, but may have limitations in scope or effectiveness.
Some documented instances of cooperation, but less frequent or less impactful compared to Score 3.
Cooperation is more reactive than proactive.

Score 1

(Initiated Cooperation with Developmental Scope)

Initiation of formalized inter-agency cooperation at the international or regional level to tackle tax-related IFFs.
Legal frameworks and measures are in developmental stages.
Limited evidence of coordinated efforts; primarily in the form of agreements or early-stage collaborations.
The focus is more on establishing structures rather than on active enforcement or outcomes.

Score 0

(No Formalized Cooperation)

No evidence of formalized inter-agency cooperation at the international or regional level to tackle tax-related IFFs.
Lack of legal frameworks or authority for such cooperation.
Absence of any documented efforts or initiatives in this regard."

Indicator R4-7 : The country has established comprehensive mechanisms for resolving disputes among agencies at both domestic and international levels, enhancing collaboration in addressing tax-related issues.

Tax-related Indicators to be measured

The country has established comprehensive mechanisms for resolving disputes among agencies at both domestic and international levels, enhancing collaboration in addressing tax-related issues.

Weight

Weighting Rationale

Dispute resolution is essential for effective inter-agency cooperation, but it's more of a supportive mechanism compared to the direct actions against IFFs represented by other indicators.

Scoring Criteria

Score 3

(Comprehensive Resolution Among Tax-Related IFF Agencies)

Highly developed, integrated dispute resolution systems among agencies at domestic, international, and regional levels focused on tax-related IFFs.
Proven record of resolving complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes, with proactive measures to prevent conflicts.

Score 2

(Developed but Isolated Resolution Mechanisms)

Established dispute resolution processes among tax-related IFF agencies, effective domestically or internationally, but not fully integrated.
Capable of managing standard disputes, some challenges in complex, cross-border situations.

Score 1

(Basic Dispute Resolution Frameworks)

Basic mechanisms in place for resolving disputes among agencies dealing with tax-related IFFs, mainly at the domestic level.
Reactive approach, limited in scope and effectiveness, especially in international contexts.

Score 0

(No Specialized Dispute Resolution Mechanisms)

No formal mechanisms for resolving disputes among agencies that focus on curbing tax-related IFFs, neither domestically nor internationally.

Inter-Agency Cooperation 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.