Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and the media demand from the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism to provide the response as soon as possible to the findings of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), that by investigating 57 organisations and individuals from media and civil society without adequate legal grounds in the case named “the List”, it has overstepped its powers and acted contrary to recommendations and standards of this international body. In addition, we invite this authority to take specific steps in alleviating the damage which occurred to the organisations and individuals who were inappropriately targeted. More concretely, the CSOs and the media from “the List” demand from the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering of the Government of Serbia to publish the key findings of the so called strategic analysis which confirmed that organisations and individuals from the List are performing their activities in accordance with the law and to respond to the invitation of the civil society to jointly notify the commercial banks in Serbia on this.
In the response to the procedure initiated against Serbia by the Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations regarding the case “the List”, FATF expressed the concern if the Republic of Serbia breached the Recommendation 29 that outlines the role and responsibilities of the financial intelligence units, such as the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism.
Previously, the Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations concluded in their announcement of 11 November 2020 that the Government of Serbia abused the mechanism for prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorism for the purpose of ‘intimidating the civil society actors and human rights defenders, restricting their work and muffling any criticism of the Government’ as it requested from all commercial banks in Serbia to provide banking information and information on financial transactions for 57 NGOs, media associations and individuals referred to in the so called “List”. UN Rapporteours launched the procedure, which included request for official explanation of the Republic of Serbia, but also the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the international body whose recommendations the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering invoked in their explanation of their actions, as well as the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism – MONEYVAL. We would like to mention that this case was included in the Resolution on the progress of countries under a full monitoring procedure which was debated in the final session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held on 25–28 January, as one of the most important points for assessing the progress Serbia made in 2020.
In their response to the request of the UN Special Procedures Branch for the explanation, FATF clearly condemned Administration’s actions, stating that they ‘share the concerns regarding the allegations that Serbia misused its Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism with the aim to restrict or coerce civil society actors for their work and criticism of the Government.’ In the letter from this organisation, it is further emphasised that such actions from Administration are in direct contradiction to the FATF standards, as the powers given to financial intelligence units (FIU) in countering money laundering and financing of terrorism do ‘not include indiscriminate requests for information to reporting entities for the purpose of analyses, naming these “fishing expeditions”’. Moreover, FATF noted that the financial intelligence units, such as the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering, shall not ‘solicit information from its reporting entities (i.e. commercial banks) in the course of developing strategic analysis products’ and that the requests on specific organisations and individuals ‘without grounds of reasonable suspicion are not in line with the requirements set out in the FATF standards’. This indicates that explanation of the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering that it had used Article 37 of the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism, since it had no other means whatsoever to collect date on donations to the organisations from the List, was in direct contradiction to the international standards.
This justification provided by the Administration demonstrates that it is not ready for genuine partnership with civil sector in countering terrorism. It could have obtained such data by inviting the organisations to voluntarily provide information and to participate in a part of strategic analysis. Such good practice of partnership in implementation of the FATF Recommendation 8 related to the protection of non-profit sector from potential terrorist financing abuse already exist in Europe.
CSOs and the media from the List, as well as international organisations including European Commission and European Federation of Journalists, sent the request to the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering for the clarification of the grounds of this investigation and criteria used for its implementation after the publication of the request sent to the banks in July last year. This response from FATF as the highest international authority in this domain confirmed our doubt in the lack of adequate legal grounds of the Serbian authorities’ actions in this case. FATF reponse has also established a standard which could be applied in other cases of abusing the mechanism for prevention of financing of terrorism with the aim to coerce civil society and the media in other countries.
Civil society organisations and the media from “the List” invite the Administration for the prevention of money laundering to take specific steps to alleviate the damage caused to the organisations and individuals who were inappropriately targeted, in order to regain trust required for the continuation of the cooperation in countering terrorism and extremism.
- Civic Initiatives
- Business Info Group
- Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS)
- The Belgrade Center for Security Policy (BCSP)
- Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA)
- Belgrade Center for Human Rights
- Bureau for Social Research (BIRODI)
- Center for Rule of Law
- National Coalition for Decentralization (NCD)
- Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights (YUCOM)
- Youth Center CK13
- European Movement in Serbia (EMinS)
- Youth Initiative for Human Rights
- CANVAS
- Libek
- Humanitarian Law Center
- Center for Investigative Journalism of Serbia (CINS)
- European Policy Center
- BIRN
- Trag Foundation
- Novi Sad School of Journalism (NSSJ)
- Center for Civil Society Development PROTECTA
- Association of Local Independent Media (“Local Press”)
