

Currently released so far... 251287 / 251,287
Articles
Brazil
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom
Sweden
Global
United States
Latin America
Egypt
Jordan
Yemen
Thailand
Browse latest releases
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Browse by tag
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 02ABUJA2786, NIGERIA: EMBASSY VIEWS ON LOOMING FATF SANCTIONS
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
02ABUJA2786 | 2002-10-03 15:38 | 2011-08-30 01:44 | CONFIDENTIAL | Embassy Abuja |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 002786
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR AF AND INL
.
TREASURY FOR OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT--DANIEL GLASER AND SHAUN
LONERGAN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/03/2017
TAGS: KCRM EFIN SNAR NI
SUBJECT: NIGERIA: EMBASSY VIEWS ON LOOMING FATF SANCTIONS
DECISION
REF: 03OCT02 LONERGAN/TAYLOR TELCON
Classified by Ambassador Howard F. Jeter. Reasons: 1.5 (b)
and (d).
1.(U) This is an action message.
2.(C) The Embassy understands that an October 1 Washington
interagency meeting concluded that the USG should recommend
counter-measures against Nigeria during next week's Financial
Action Task Force (FATF) Plenary session in Paris. According
to the USG representative to the FATF, Treasury's Shaun
Lonergan, the GON did not report adequate progress when a GON
delegation met with the FATF's Africa and Middle East Review
Group (AMERG) on September 25.
3.(C) We agree that the GON did not energetically address the
issue during most of the year; yet, after months of
unsuccessful dialogue, the GON is now motivated to take
needed steps towards money laundering reform. President
Obasanjo has charged his Principal Secretary, Stephen
Oronsaye and Attorney General Kanu Agabi with leading the
dialogue with the FATF and with coordinating GON legislative
and policy reforms. This seriousness was envinced after the
FATF and the Embassy warned the President that
"counter-measures" would be taken if the GON did not show
genuine progress on this issue.
4.(SBU) Steps taken during the last four weeks include
significant amendments to the GON's existing Banks and Other
Financial Institutions (BOFI) Act of 1991 and its Money
Laundering Act of 1995. Also, the President submitted a
revised draft Financial Crimes Commission Bill. These
amendments make a number of major improvements, including:
expanding the scope of money laundering to include the
proceeds of all crimes; adding "other financial institutions"
to those required to submit currency transaction reports over
a threshold of the equivalent of $5,000; and giving the
Central Bank greater authority to freeze suspicious accounts.
A stumbling block to finalize the legal reform is the
lethargy of the National Assembly in passing these and many
other proposed laws.
5.(C) We feel a credible threat of imminent counter-measures
is far stronger and will afford much better leverage than the
actual imposition of those sanctions at this stage. This
will encourage the Executive Branch to redouble its efforts
and will place a great deal of political pressure on members
of the National Assembly not to let their legislative
inaction result in the imposition of sanctions on their
country. Assuming this blame would be something the Assembly
would like to avoid during an election year, we think the
legislature would be compelled to act uickly on the proposed
legislation now before it. Conversely, implementation of
sanctions might be counter-productive. The Executive and
Legislature are locked in an intense political battle.
Imposition of sanctions right now would be blamed on the
President and the Assembly would have no incentive to help
him resolve the issue even though doing so would be clearly
in tne country's interest. Again, maintaining the threat of
sanctions will put an equal onus on both the Executive and
Legislature.
6.(C) Additionally, the imposition of sanctions could produce
a defensive backlash, in which advancing money laundering
reforms will prove more rather than less difficult. If the
USG sanctions will be those contained in the Patriot Act, the
strain to the bilateral relationship could be significant.
Because of the anti-terrorism motivation behind the Patriot
Act, the Nigerians will perceive that we are viewing their
inaction as some type of implicit support for terrorism.
This would be unfortunate because Nigeria has been one of our
strongest anti-terrorism allies in Africa. Nigerians will
resent being sanctioned under the same legal weapon used
against terrorists and rogue states.
7.(C) The argument for imposition of counter-measures is
sound and these measures would hurt Nigeria. However, we are
not sure that this is what we want to do. Diminishing
Nigeria's economcy and economic prospects, at this stage,
would not appear to be in the U.S. interest. If our goal is
to advance money laundering reforms, we should adopt a more
measured approach. We propose the USG representative to the
FATF advocate imposing a tight 60-day deadline for the GON to
pass (not introduce or consider) required anti-money
laundering legislation in the National Assembly. This would
give the Executive and Legislature time to act on the
new-found momentum in passing the requisite anti-money
laundering legislation. The Embassy would also press key
leaders in the legislature to move expeditiously on the
issue. Failure to pass this legislation would automatically
trigger the appropriate sanctions under the Patriot Act or
similar mechanism.
8.(U) Please advise.
JETER