“Once a PEP always a PEP” is rule based. At a risk based approach FATF needs to come with more guidance. UK does not follow once a pep always a pep. One should apply his judgement
another great video of yours. keep up the good work 👏👏👍🏼 here i would want to understand a point whether a personal assistant/secretary of a PEP would be considered a close associate or not? close associates are usually business partners but since a PA would have close proximity with the PEP as part of daily work so i think they could also be prone to risk of bribery & corruption like PEP. what's your view on this
@Karish. D - Great Comment and even better question. We think this is where applying a Risk Based Approach is applicable, and what we mean by that is because normally PA/Secretaries are not considered PEPs. However theres is a number of factors you need to consider... is the individual who is the PEP, what role does he/she have? are they a local or regional public figure if YES then we wouldnt consider the PA/Secretary a PEP by association, if the PEP is the President or has a National level role in a jurisdiction known for bribery and corruption within the political system then there is a case to treat that PA/Secretary as a close associate therefore you would have her down as a PEP by association. Another factor is the length of time they have been working together, people in high ranking roles always have the same people working for them year after year. As mentioned at the top its a great question and one that cant be answered in simple YES or NO. I hope the above helps. :)
@@KYCLookup yes seems right with Risk based approach. agree with you that a straight yes or no will not suffice here. got more clarity on this & thanks for the explanation. 😊👍🏼
@Rohit Raj - thanks for the comment. You are in luck as we just recorded this very topic. What are Sanctions. ;) stay tune for when it cones live. Should be next week. 👍
@Rohit Raj - thanks for the comment. You are in luck as we just recorded this very topic. What are Sanctions. ;) stay tune for when it cones live. Should be next week. 👍
Hi, I disagree with the statement "once a pep, always a pep." This may be true in countries with stable governments, where only key officials like the president and ministers change, while the rest of the government remains the same. However, in countries with frequent conflicts or where the entire government changes, this phrase doesn't hold much meaning. When a new government takes over, the previous officials lose their positions and no longer have the authority to influence anything. Therefore, they are no longer considered "peps."
Agree with thumbs rule once a PEP ALWAYS A PEP. As they may still have influence & loyalty among their ex staff and or help their associates in ex office to do corruption.
@Tonymontgomery5901 Thank for the comment and for learning with KYC Lookup. If you want to learn more, why not take our free training course. Simply visit freeamlcourses.com register and take the 15mins demo course. Enjoy!!
@Mermaid_woman - thanks for the comment, can you elaborate more on the question please in order to give a more accurate answer. Corporate PEPs in some cases can be referred to individuals who work for State-Owned enterprises, so although the role the person carries out is not considered or eligible to be called a PEP the fact they work for a government body or government entity it will define them as PEPs too. please share more information so we can assist further. :)
@Bazangelopoulos Thank you for the comment. Yes, Nigel Farage would be considered a PEP due to his several public figure roles he has carried out (e.g. M.E.P).
@hammandkamran2771 Thank you for the comment. We already have a video on FATF, please see the below: What is FATF th-cam.com/video/MDeWhLMgUzg/w-d-xo.html What the FATF Grey List th-cam.com/video/jZcmO9NzSfU/w-d-xo.html
@Malabari hub, did you watch the video? Modi is featured in the video and the thumbnail. the video is not a list of PEPs, the idea is to provide detail what it a PEP and the risks they present. Hope you liked it.
So we just assume that ppl in power are corrupt... Why not assume all men are at higher risk being serial killers because most serial killers have been men.
Thank you for the comment, however no idea where you got that idea from. A PEP will naturally be exposed to bribes, kickbacks and much more hence why the high risk factor. Nothing to do with men or all PEPs being corrupt as its not the case. 👋
Thank you watching our video, dont forget to subscribe so you dont miss any of our future videos. 👍😀
Request you to make a video on Risk parameters used to determine the customer risk category
@@krishnanaikwade487 Good suggestion. We have made that topic into a course which will be launched soon. Maybe we can go a short video on it too. 👍
@@KYCLookup thanks for the quick response
@@krishnanaikwade487 No problem. We are here to help as much as possible. 👍
Can show some cases studies bank panelty
I totally agree, once a PEP always a PEP. An individual might be out of office but his/her level of influence remains. At least in a lot of cases.
“Once a PEP always a PEP” is rule based. At a risk based approach FATF needs to come with more guidance. UK does not follow once a pep always a pep. One should apply his judgement
another great video of yours. keep up the good work 👏👏👍🏼
here i would want to understand a point whether a personal assistant/secretary of a PEP would be considered a close associate or not?
close associates are usually business partners but since a PA would have close proximity with the PEP as part of daily work so i think they could also be prone to risk of bribery & corruption like PEP. what's your view on this
@Karish. D - Great Comment and even better question. We think this is where applying a Risk Based Approach is applicable, and what we mean by that is because normally PA/Secretaries are not considered PEPs. However theres is a number of factors you need to consider... is the individual who is the PEP, what role does he/she have? are they a local or regional public figure if YES then we wouldnt consider the PA/Secretary a PEP by association, if the PEP is the President or has a National level role in a jurisdiction known for bribery and corruption within the political system then there is a case to treat that PA/Secretary as a close associate therefore you would have her down as a PEP by association. Another factor is the length of time they have been working together, people in high ranking roles always have the same people working for them year after year.
As mentioned at the top its a great question and one that cant be answered in simple YES or NO. I hope the above helps. :)
@@KYCLookup yes seems right with Risk based approach. agree with you that a straight yes or no will not suffice here. got more clarity on this & thanks for the explanation. 😊👍🏼
@@karish.3484 No problem. Thanks for the question
Thanks for such an informative video. Can you make a video on 'What is a difference between Sanctions and Embargoes' ?
@Rohit Raj - thanks for the comment. You are in luck as we just recorded this very topic. What are Sanctions. ;) stay tune for when it cones live. Should be next week. 👍
@Rohit Raj - thanks for the comment. You are in luck as we just recorded this very topic. What are Sanctions. ;) stay tune for when it cones live. Should be next week. 👍
Hi, I disagree with the statement "once a pep, always a pep." This may be true in countries with stable governments, where only key officials like the president and ministers change, while the rest of the government remains the same. However, in countries with frequent conflicts or where the entire government changes, this phrase doesn't hold much meaning. When a new government takes over, the previous officials lose their positions and no longer have the authority to influence anything. Therefore, they are no longer considered "peps."
Topic well covered, always want you to come up with such videos
This is a vague doctrine and the sloppy way it's being implemented is harming innocent people. Governments must apply rigorous controls.
@galaxytrio thanks for the comment. Couldnt agree more 👍
Make a video on which documents are to be verified by bank at onboarding
@Pravalikacherry, thanks for the suggestion.
want to research further on FATF please guide
Thanks just shared more details via your other comment your left us. Hope its the information you were looking for.
Agree with thumbs rule once a PEP ALWAYS A PEP. As they may still have influence & loyalty among their ex staff and or help their associates in ex office to do corruption.
@Nagendra Jain Thank you for the support and comment which we agree with 👍
Tony Blair comes to mind
i agree Once a PEP always a PEP...
ALWAYS!!! Thanks for the comment
Thank you educating me on what a "PEP'' is....
@Tonymontgomery5901 Thank for the comment and for learning with KYC Lookup. If you want to learn more, why not take our free training course. Simply visit freeamlcourses.com register and take the 15mins demo course.
Enjoy!!
Who comes under corporate PEP??
@Mermaid_woman - thanks for the comment, can you elaborate more on the question please in order to give a more accurate answer.
Corporate PEPs in some cases can be referred to individuals who work for State-Owned enterprises, so although the role the person carries out is not considered or eligible to be called a PEP the fact they work for a government body or government entity it will define them as PEPs too.
please share more information so we can assist further. :)
Is celebrates considered as pep?
@knowledgefrombooks710 thanks for the comment, can you elaborate on the question as we will be happy to assist.
How about Nigel Farage?
@Bazangelopoulos Thank you for the comment. Yes, Nigel Farage would be considered a PEP due to his several public figure roles he has carried out (e.g. M.E.P).
a vedio on FATF is requested
@hammandkamran2771 Thank you for the comment. We already have a video on FATF, please see the below:
What is FATF
th-cam.com/video/MDeWhLMgUzg/w-d-xo.html
What the FATF Grey List
th-cam.com/video/jZcmO9NzSfU/w-d-xo.html
Please make a video on US Patriot Act
@Nileshwar roy - Thank you for the suggestion, thats a good one
Any what's up groups please send me the link of KYC lookup
@Mohan Dasari you are at the KYC Lookup page. no need for the link ;)
Let us know why Mr. Narendra Modi not listed in PeP ? he also well known politician and pm of a country.
@Malabari hub, did you watch the video? Modi is featured in the video and the thumbnail. the video is not a list of PEPs, the idea is to provide detail what it a PEP and the risks they present. Hope you liked it.
So we just assume that ppl in power are corrupt... Why not assume all men are at higher risk being serial killers because most serial killers have been men.
Thank you for the comment, however no idea where you got that idea from. A PEP will naturally be exposed to bribes, kickbacks and much more hence why the high risk factor. Nothing to do with men or all PEPs being corrupt as its not the case. 👋