POLITICALLY EXPOSED PERSONS IN TERMS OF STATE FINANCIAL MONITORING: ARE THE MODELS OF THEIR REGULATORY DEFINITION SUCCESSFUL?

Abstract

Given the recognition of the priority of the European integration and North Atlantic vectors of modern state-building and law-making processes in most countries of the world, the issue of "high terminological quality", "terminological purity", with the implementation of relevant international and European legal standards for the formation of "basic terminology", the basis for combating the legalisation of "dirty money" is not only relevant, but also of paramount importance, as it plays the role of "key provisions" of the entire regulatory framework. The purpose of the study is to analyse the existing international legal and European standards and national regulatory models for defining "politically exposed persons", with the aim of identifying "defects in their quality" and formulating proposals for their elimination. The object of the study is social relations directly related to the state financial monitoring of politically exposed persons. The subject of the study is the regulatory models for determining politically exposed persons in terms of state financial monitoring. The methodological basis was formed by both general scientific and special research methods, which made it possible to present a comprehensive cross-section of the relevant issue. Results. The "quality" of the regulatory definition of PEPs implies the following: a) consideration of international legal and European standards for preventing and combating the legalisation of "dirty money" as a "basis" for national thematic rulemaking; b) regulatory distinction between "main PEPs", with criteria that allow determining the "uniqueness" of their legal status, and "additional PEPs" (persons who do not have the main features of PEPs, but may potentially be involved in relations with them); c) "criterionality" of the "main PEPs" is directly related to the "influential" position and significant public functions performed by the person (it is mandatory to have these positions enshrined in the law, with the corresponding correlation of functions); d) delimitation of "additional PEPs", with the identification of those persons who are "related" by family and other relations with the "main PEP". For each category of such persons, the guideline is to standardise their list, which makes it impossible to vary the interpretation of the relevant provisions and diversify law enforcement practice.