Course Hero Logo

Technical compliance 216 anti money laundering and

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 218 - 219 out of 236 pages.

TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE216Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures in Mexico – 2018Technical compliancethe fact that Article 449 of the CNPP requires MLA requests to specify the location of the property tobe frozen, seized, or confiscated, this does not necessarily prevent the execution of a freezing requestwhere the location is unknown. However, in such cases, the requesting country would have to maketwo requests, one asking the Mexican authorities to first identify the location of the property andanother asking that the property be frozen, seized, or confiscated, leading to delays in the adoptionof this measure. Furthermore, Article 449 of the CNPP does not impose a time limit for responding torequests to identify, freeze, seize, and confiscate, with the result that it cannot be determinedwhether action is taken expeditiously.Criterion 38.2— The Mexican authorities can implement MLA requests made on the basis of non-conviction-based confiscation proceedings and related provisional measures through the proceduresestablished in the LFED. Articles 66 to 69 of the LFED provide that where the competent authority ofa foreign government submits an MLA request seeking the recovery of property, the request must behandled by the PGR or another competent authority, depending on the circumstances. Based on thatMLA request, the PGR will raise extinction of ownership proceedings before a court and will requestone or more provisional measures available under the LFED.Criterion 38.3— As regards item (a) of this criterion, Mexico has signed a number of bilateral MLAtreaties with, for example, Canada and the US, in order to take action to coordinate seizure andconfiscation. As regards item (b), the SAE, the functions of which are governed by the LFAEBSP, hasthe power to manage, sell, or directly destroy transferred property; to appoint custodians,liquidators, auditors, or administrators in respect of such property; and to entrust third parties withthe sale and destruction of such property. For these purposes, property includes property seized andconfiscated in federal criminal proceedings (Article 1 of the LFAEBSP).Criterion 38.4— Under Article 69 of the LFED, where an MLA request for the recovery of propertyterminates in a judgment ordering the extinction of ownership, the property or proceeds of the salethereof must be delivered, through the PGR and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the competentforeign authority, unless there is an agreement on sharing assets. Mexico had signed a number oflegal instruments which contain provisions for coordinating the sharing of confiscated property withcountries such as Costa Rica and Colombia.Weighting and ConclusionThe deficiencies identified in R.37 have a negative impact on this recommendation.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 236 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Summer
Professor
AndersonandDupej
Tags

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture