

Knowledgebase
Canada’s AML regulations require banks and financial institutions to check whether their clients are Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) in order to build accurate risk profiles and comply with legislation. PEP screening is required by regulatory authorities around the world: as a member of the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Canada’s domestic PEP screening requirements are monitored by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC).
Following recommendations from the FATF in 2016, Canada amended the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) in 2017 to increase its regulatory focus on PEPs in Canada. In order to comply with current PCMLTFA requirements, financial institutions must understand their screening obligations.
Politically exposed persons are generally classified as individuals who have been entrusted with a prominent public function – this definition also applies in Canada. Since PEPs present a higher risk of being involved in money laundering because of their political position, power, and influence, financial institutions must take this into account when doing business with them.
As a member-state, Canada bases its definition of PEPs on the guidance issued by the FATF. According to that guidance, the following people may be considered politically exposed persons in Canada:
Examples of specific PEP roles and positions in Canada include members of federal and provincial legislatures, heads of government agencies, deputy ministers, city mayors, and judges. The term PEP also applies to relatives and close associates (RCAs) of the individuals listed above, who may become involved in financial crimes like money laundering because of family, professional, and social connections.
Following the FATF’s 2016 recommendations, the 2017 amendments to Canada’s PCMLTFA focused on the risk posed by domestic PEPs – extending the screening practices usually applied to foreign PEPs to their domestic counterparts. Under the new rules:
The PCMLTFA sets out the duration for which PEPs must remain classified as such:
Canada’s approach to PEP classification differs from other territories which tend to allow clients to shed their status sooner after they leave office. With that in mind, it’s important that financial institutions in Canada implement screening solutions that can accommodate PCMLTFA compliance requirements, and monitor PEP status for the duration that clients are classified as such.
This obligation requires flexible, automated screening and monitoring processes with a range of capabilities. Ideally, the solution will be tailored to the needs of the institution it serves and updated daily to reflect potential changes in clients’ risk exposure.
Share your thoughts and start a conversation.
Related articles:
To make sure you get a great experience on our website, we use cookies. If you continue to use this website or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. Read more about our Cookie Policy
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
Canada’s approach to PEP classification differs from other territories which tend to allow clients to shed their status sooner after they leave office. With that in mind, it’s important that financial institutions in Canada implement screening solutions that can accommodate PCMLTFA compliance requirements, and monitor PEP status for the duration that clients are classified as such