When is a PEP not a PEP?

When it comes to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance, few topics stir as much debate as the classification of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), especially after it’s recent scrutiny. While management of PEPs can be challenging, not every individual connected to public office presents the same level of risk. So, when is a PEP truly a PEP, and when should they be treated differently? This article aims to explore the guidelines issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on identifying, assessing, and managing PEP-related risks.

Understanding What a PEP Is

According to AML regulations, a PEP is someone entrusted with a prominent public function—think heads of state, high-ranking government officials, senior judges, and military leaders. The reasoning behind increased due diligence for PEPs is the perceived risk of corruption or misuse of power.

However, the regulations don’t apply universally to all public servants. For instance, the FCA advises against treating junior civil servants or local government officials in the UK as PEPs unless there are specific high-risk factors present. This distinction helps firms apply a risk-based approach, focusing their resources on genuine risks rather than applying a broad-brush approach.

The ‘Lower-Risk PEP’

Not all PEPs pose a high risk of financial crime. In fact, many may fall under a ‘lower risk’ category due to the nature of their roles or the transparency of their country's governance. Here are key factors to consider when determining lower risk:

1. Geography: A PEP from a country with low corruption levels, strong state institutions, and an independent judiciary typically presents a lower risk.
2. Role: A PEP without executive powers—such as an opposition MP or a member of a national advisory body—might warrant less scrutiny.
3. Transparency: Public officials subject to rigorous disclosure rules, such as public registers of interests and independent oversight, are less likely to engage in financial misconduct.

In such cases, firms can reduce the extent of their Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD), ensuring compliance while minimising unnecessary burdens on both the firm and the client.

When is a PEP No Longer a PEP?

A significant question for many compliance officers is: when can a former PEP be treated as a regular client? According to the FCA, firms should continue applying EDD for at least 12 months after the individual leaves public office. After that period, ongoing monitoring and risk assessment will dictate whether continued scrutiny is necessary.

It’s important to note that family members and close associates of a former PEP do not automatically retain their high-risk status. Unless specific red flags emerge, they can be treated as ordinary customers once the PEP’s term ends.

Proportionality in Practice

The key takeaway from the FCA's guidance is proportionality. Firms are encouraged to apply a risk-based approach tailored to individual circumstances rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all policy. This means:

• Conducting case-by-case assessments of each PEP’s risk profile.
• Differentiating between low-risk and high-risk PEPs to determine appropriate levels of EDD.
• Documenting all decisions related to PEP classifications and ongoing monitoring to ensure transparency during audits.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach

For compliance officers, the challenge lies in striking the right balance. Treating every PEP as high-risk can overwhelm resources and alienate low-risk clients, while underestimating risks could expose the firm to regulatory action. By following FCA guidelines and adopting a nuanced approach, firms can better manage PEP-related risks without compromising operational efficiency. Ultimately, understanding when a PEP is not a PEP—or at least not a high-risk one—allows firms to focus on genuine threats, providing a more effective AML framework.

To find out more about how Validient 's AML solution can help management of PEPs and streamline your compliance, visit our website here

Thanks for reading!