Angola has earned itself the 165th spot out of 180 ranked countries in the latest Transparency International Corruption Perception Index thanks to recent corruption cases involving its government and top officials including a daughter of the former president, Isabel Dos Santos. Angola seems to fit into the bill of all parameters used in measuring the vulnerability of a Nation to anti-money laundering policy. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists released documents uncovering a wide range global network of shell companies tied to Isabel, the documents revealed how Isabel transaction went undetected in about 41 countries, even in countries where they even have anti-money laundering policy. Considering one of the latest metrics of how effective a country’s AML policies and recent evaluations by the FATF’s regional bodies, assessments are conducted every few years to comprehend whether a jurisdiction is implementing best practice in combating money laundering and more likely whether the jurisdiction’s AML institutions are likely to be effective. Few of the jurisdiction that was part of Isabel’s network was even on the FATF’s watchlist but it was established that countries in Isabel’s network have lower levels of financial secrecy and corruption. The results reflect the intention of launderers to keep illicit funds in countries that score well and there also exist some places where Maloney launderers origin or source of funds are covered. Isabel’s husband, Sindika Dokolo in a recent interview said his finances were transferred enroute offshore jurisdiction because of the difficulty he faced in opening bank accounts directly in the EU because of its link with Angola and DR Congo. Recent big scandals like the Panama Papers, Danske Bank scandal and down Santos scheme has put to a litmus test the effectiveness of relatively rich and large economies style of policing their financial systems. It is ironical that most of the countries that are under FATF’S watchlist re relatively poor ones where illicit funds get their source and there is less concentration or sanctions on richer and larger economies that are mostly the beneficiaries of the illicit fund.
