FATF Meeting; What Fate Awaits Iran?

This week, Iran is facing an important decision at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in Paris. In its previous meeting, the organization extended Iran's deadline for implementing reforms in its financial system by four months; reforms related to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. After reaching the JCPOA, Iran committed to advancing reforms that could improve its relations with the international financial system. However, this path has been tumultuous, and now, with the Supreme Leader's involvement in this issue, especially on the eve of the FATF decision, it has gained special importance. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has asked the parliament to set aside the anti-terror financing bill. On the other hand, some American lawmakers have urged the Treasury Secretary to use his influence to encourage FATF member countries to prevent Iran from accessing the international financial system. Regarding the outlook for the upcoming FATF meeting, Radio Farda has spoken with Matthew Spivak, an anti-money laundering expert who has worked on financial crimes in various institutions, including the U.S. Department of Justice, for the past 16 years. What should we expect from next week's FATF meeting when it has to make a decision about Iran? This is an important question. Several issues need to be considered. Currently, it is harder for the U.S. or any other country to attract all opinions towards itself than it was in the past. Traditionally, this is how the organization has been run. There are usually working groups whose meetings culminate in three sessions a year, with many decisions made in those working groups and announced at the main meeting. However, in this case, due to many events occurring outside of FATF meetings, the situation is different. Countries thinking about their national interests and how each decision will affect them and others encourages them to decide and bring others along with them. Another issue is that the work of FATF and its mission is genuine, aiming to protect the international financial system from financial crimes. I believe member countries still believe this is a very important goal, but there are disagreements on how to achieve this goal. I also believe that when we look at the outcomes of this meeting, it will be difficult for both the United States and Iran to achieve exactly what they want. For Iran, it will be hard to exit the list of high-risk countries because there are still issues remaining regarding the actions it should have taken. However, for the United States, if it wants to impose strict countermeasures against Iran again, it will also be difficult for various reasons. So do you think the members will agree to maintain the status quo and extend Iran's current situation in FATF? I cannot say with certainty what will happen, but given the current situation, considering that Iran has done a lot, the consultations it has with FATF experts, establishing a liquidity system mentioned in February, and advancing efforts to pass laws particularly related to anti-money laundering measures, it shows that Iran is cooperating. The most important issue to be considered will be whether Iran is a cooperating country or not. I think they can focus on the fact that the extension of the action plan should happen. However, on the other hand, the question is whether the United States will succeed in aligning opinions with itself to bring Iran back to the countermeasure status and whether it can do this with its traditional allies. Here we may witness a difference of opinion. Because the United States has exited the nuclear agreement, this puts more pressure on European allies to maintain some of the JCPOA benefits. If they vote with the U.S. to reinstate countermeasures against Iran, it complicates matters and may be seen as a threat to Europe's security and interests. In a recent article you wrote about the FATF meeting, you referred to the statements of Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader, and your interpretation was that Ayatollah Khamenei's remarks had multiple objectives. Can you elaborate on this? The statements made by the Supreme Leader last week seemed to be a cold shower on the entire FATF process, encouraging parliament to avoid joining international conventions and not to consider FATF requirements and standards. However, I believe that just as during the period leading to the JCPOA, such statements can have more than one interpretation, as they do not have a single audience. In a way, he was reassuring his allies about how such actions would affect their interests and how, for example, the IRGC could continue its activities and actions outside Iran's borders. However, I think it should also be noted that there is a growing need and support for better transparency in the banking system within Iran, and this issue is becoming a priority every day. But these statements can also be assessed from an international perspective and may be used to pressure European countries to offer better conditions to Iran. Ultimately, this should be interpreted in terms of action versus words. Although harsh words have been said about abandoning this process, look at the actions that the Iranian leader has recently supported. The establishment of an economic council created to respond to U.S. sanctions is not coincidental, and I believe that the first decision of that council was to accelerate cooperation with FATF. As a result, these are contradictory statements and actions that cannot be overlooked. Perhaps he is dissatisfied with the entire process, but maybe this is just part of the negotiation. If Iranian lawmakers eventually pass a set of laws that align with the actions the international community demands from Iran, do you think this could be evaluated by FATF as cooperation from Iran, allowing Iran to maintain its current status? From the perspective of the international community, when we look at anti-money laundering legal standards and actions against terrorist financing, updating and advancing internal standards is encouraging. However, from the perspective of an international organization like FATF, as long as countries, not just Iran, do not change how they manage themselves in this area, it will not be entirely acceptable. They might say this is a good initial step and should continue, but from their perspective regarding the international financial system, if they make an exception for Iran, then they must do the same for other countries. This would not align with what they claim their goal is, which is to combat global terrorist financing and money laundering.