Client identification and money laundering control : perspectives on the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001

The Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (FICA) compels certain persons and institutions (defined as "accountable institutions'') to identify and verify the identity of a new client before any transaction may be concluded or any business relationship is established.1 Accountable institutions are listed in schedule ¹ to FICA and include banks, brokers, financial advisers, insurance companies, attorneys and estate agents. This duty to identify new clients came into effect on 30 June 2003. However, FICA also requires a similar procedure to be followed in respect of all current clients. Current clients are those with whom an accountable institution had business relationships on 30 June 2003.² After 30 June 2004 an institution may not conclude a transaction in the course of its business relationship with an unidentified current client, until it has established and verified that client's identity as prescribed. An institution that concludes any transaction in contravention of this prohibition, commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding R10 million or to imprisonment of up to 15 years.³

The majority of accountable institutions and their clients failed to meet the June 2004 current client identification deadline.4 This failure posed serious economic and legal risks. With a few days to spare, the minister of finance granted a partial and temporary exemption in respect of these requirements. This article explores the statutory scheme for identification and re-identification of clients and some of the practical problems that were encountered. The June 2004 exemptions from these requirements are also considered and proposals for law reform are made.

The discussion of the FICA identification scheme necessitates the following brief overview of the international and South African money laundering control framework.

1 s 21(1) of FICA.
2 s 21(2) of FICA. See also s 82(2)(b).
3 s 46(2) of FICA read with s 68(1) of FICA.

Common trends and common cycles in per capita GDP : the case of the G7 Countries, 1870-2001

In this paper we analyze per capita incomes of the G7 countries using the common cycles test developed by Vahid and Engle (Journal of Applied Econometrics, 8:341–360, 1993) and extended by Hecq et al. (Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 62:511–532, 2000; Econometric Reviews, 21:273–307, 2002) and the common trend test developed by Johansen (Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12:231–254, 1988). Our main contribution is that we impose the common cycle and common trend restrictions in decomposing the innovations into permanent and transitory components. Our main finding is permanent shocks explain the bulk of the variations in incomes for the G7 countries over short time horizons, and is in sharp contrast to the bulk of the recent literature. We attribute this to the greater forecasting accuracy achieved, which we later confirm through performing a post sample forecasting exercise, from the variance decomposition analysis.

What determines migration flows from low-income to high-income countries? An empirical investigation of Fiji-U.S. migration 1972-2001

This article examines the long-run and short-run determinants of migration from Fiji to the United States between 1972 and 2001 using a human capital framework, which is extended to take account of political instability in Fiji. In the long-run the authors find that differences in income levels, disparities in police strength, disparities in the number of doctors, costs of moving, and political instability in Fiji are all statistically significant with the expected sign. In the short run the cost of moving, lagged migration, political instability, and differences in both police strength and medical care are the main determinants of Fiji-United States immigration.