Panama
This report analyses the implementation of the AEOI Standard in Panama with respect to the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. It assesses both the legal frameworks put in place to implement the AEOI Standard and the effectiveness of the implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice.
The methodology used for the peer reviews and that therefore underpins this report is outlined in Chapter 2.
Overall findings
AEOI legal framework
Panama’s legal framework implementing the AEOI Standard is in place but needs improvement in order to be fully consistent with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. While Panama’s international legal framework to exchange the information with all of Panama’s Interested Appropriate Partners (CR2) is consistent with the requirements, its domestic legislative framework requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1) has deficiencies significant to the proper functioning of elements of the AEOI Standard. More specifically, Panama does not fully incorporate some of the due diligence procedures and does not incorporate the categories of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions in accordance with the requirements. Moreover, there is a deficiency in Panama’s legal framework for the enforcement of the requirements.
Overall determination on the legal framework: In Place But Needs Improvement
Effectiveness of AEOI in practice
Panama’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is not compliant with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference to ensure the effectiveness of the AEOI Standard in practice. While Panama is partially compliant with respect to exchanging the information in an effective and timely manner (CR2), there are fundamental issues with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1).
Overall rating in relation to the effectiveness in practice: Non-Compliant
General context
Panama commenced exchanges under the AEOI Standard in 2018.
In order to provide for Reporting Financial Institutions to collect and report the information to be exchanged, Panama:
Under this framework Reporting Financial Institutions were required to commence the due diligence procedures in relation to New Accounts from 1 July 2017. With respect to Preexisting Accounts, Reporting Financial Institutions were required to complete due diligence procedures on High Value Individual Accounts by 30 June 2018 and on Lower Value Individual Accounts and Entity Accounts by 30 June 2019.
With respect to the exchange of information under the AEOI Standard, Panama is a Party to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and activated the associated CRS Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement in time for exchanges in 2018.
Table 1 sets out the number of Financial Institutions in Panama that reported information on Financial Accounts in 2021 as defined in the AEOI Standard (essentially because they maintained Financial Accounts for Account Holders, or that were related to Controlling Persons, resident in a Reportable Jurisdiction). It also sets out the number of Financial Accounts that they reported in 2021. In this regard, it should be noted that Panama requires the reporting of Financial Accounts based on a prescribed list of exchange partners and some accounts may be required to be reported more than once (e.g. jointly held accounts or accounts with multiple related Controlling Persons), which is reflected in the figures below. These figures provide key contextual information to the development and implementation of Panama’s administrative compliance strategy, which is analysed in the subsequent sections of this report.
Table 2 sets out the number of exchange partners to which information was successfully sent by Panama in the past few years (including where the necessary frameworks were in place, containing an obligation on Reporting Financial Institutions to report information, but no relevant Reportable Accounts were identified). These figures provide key contextual information in relation to Panama’s exchanges in practice, which is also analysed in subsequent sections of this report.
In order to provide for the effective implementation of the AEOI Standard, in Panama:
the DGI, Dirección General de Ingresos (the tax authority) and the SBP, Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (the authority responsible for supervising the financial and banking sector), have the responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of the due diligence and reporting obligations by Reporting Financial Institutions. The DGI has the responsibility for exchanging the information with Panama’s exchange partners. The DGI is also looking to work with other regulatory authorities, such as the Superintendency of Insurance and Reinsurance (SSRR) and the Superintendency of Securities Market (SMV), for the supervision of Financial Institutions that do not fall under the purview of the SBP;
technical solutions necessary to receive and validate the information reported by Reporting Financial Institutions were put in place through the DGI FATCA & AEOI Portal, which allows Reporting Financial Institutions to transmit CRS files to the DGI; and
the Common Transmission System (CTS) is used for the exchange of the information, along with the associated file preparation and encryption requirements.
It should be noted that the review of Panama’s legal frameworks implementing the AEOI Standard concluded with the determination that Panama’s domestic legal framework is In Place But Needs Improvement and its international legal framework is In Place. This has been taken into account when reviewing the effectiveness of Panama’s implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice and where particular identified gaps in Panama’s legal frameworks directly impact its implementation in practice, these are mentioned below.
Findings and conclusions on the legal frameworks
The detailed findings and conclusions on the AEOI legal frameworks for Panama are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and then per sub-requirement (SR) as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Domestic legal framework: Jurisdictions should have a domestic legislative framework in place that requires all Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures in the CRS, and that provides for the effective implementation of the CRS as set out therein.
Determination: In Place But Needs Improvement
Panama’s domestic legislative framework is in place and contains many of the key aspects of the CRS and its Commentary requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, but it needs improvement in relation to the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions required to report information (SR 1.1), the due diligence procedures that must be applied to Financial Accounts (SR 1.2) and the framework to enforce the requirements (SR 1.4). Most significantly, Panama provides for two Non-Reporting Financial Institutions that do not meet the requirements. Furthermore, Panama does not fully incorporate some of the due diligence procedures, and there is a deficiency in Panama’s enforcement framework.
SR 1.1 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions consistently with the CRS.
Panama has defined the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions in its domestic legislative framework in a manner that is largely consistent with the CRS and its Commentary. However, deficiencies have been identified. Most significantly, Panama does not fully incorporate the category of Exempt Collective Investment Vehicle as a Non-Reporting Financial Institution and provides for a jurisdiction-specific Non-Reporting Financial Institution that is not in accordance with the requirements. The scope of Reporting Financial Institutions, including the provision of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions, is material to the proper functioning of the AEOI Standard.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to prevent Exempt Collective Investment Vehicles from issuing bearer shares from a specified date in order to be treated as Non-Reporting Financial Institutions.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to remove Fideicomisos (trusts) that serve solely as escrow for a debt or purchase obligation of a settlor from its jurisdiction-specific list of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions as this type of Entity is a Non-Financial Entity so should be treated as such under the AEOI Standard.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to fully incorporate the term “managed by” in relation to the definition of Investment Entity.
SR 1.2 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Financial Accounts and Reportable Accounts consistently with the CRS and incorporate the due diligence procedures to identify them.
Panama has defined the scope of the Financial Accounts that are required to be reported in its domestic legislative framework and incorporated the due diligence procedures that must be applied to identify them in a manner that is largely consistent with the CRS and its Commentary. However, deficiencies have been identified. More specifically, Panama’s legal framework:
does not specify that Reporting Financial Institutions may only rely on a self-certification for the purposes of determining whether a Controlling Person of a Passive NFE is a Reportable Person;
does not incorporate all the elements related to the residence address test for the purposes of identifying Reportable Accounts among Preexisting Individual Lower Value Accounts; and
sets a threshold for the identification of Controlling Persons that differs from the one defined in its AML law.
These elements of the due diligence procedures are material to the proper functioning of the AEOI Standard.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to specify that, for New Entity Accounts, Reporting Financial Institutions may only rely on a self-certification provided by a Passive NFE Account Holder or its Controlling Person to determine whether the Controlling Person is a Reportable Person.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to require Reporting Financial Institutions to use only a “current” residence address when applying the residence address test, in particular by specifying that if mail has been returned as undeliverable, then the address cannot be considered as “current”.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to require Reporting Financial Institutions to apply the specified procedures if there is a change of circumstance relating to the cases where the residence address test was used.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to ensure that the approach to determine Controlling Persons under the AEOI Standard is aligned to its approach to determine beneficial owners under its domestic AML/KYC procedures, by including a 10% threshold with respect to financial entities and a 25% threshold in relation to non-financial entities.
SR 1.3 Jurisdictions should incorporate the reporting requirements contained in Section I of the CRS into their domestic legislative framework.
Panama has incorporated the reporting requirements in its domestic legislative framework in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
SR 1.4 Jurisdictions should have a legislative framework in place that allows for the enforcement of the requirements of the CRS in practice.
Panama has a legislative framework in place to enforce the requirements in a manner that is largely consistent with the CRS and its Commentary. However, a deficiency has been identified. More specifically, Panama’s domestic legal framework does not include sufficient rules to prevent Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries from adopting practices intended to circumvent the reporting and due diligence procedures as required. This is a key element of the required enforcement framework and is therefore material to the proper functioning of the AEOI Standard.
Panama should amend its domestic legislative framework to include rules to prevent all Financial Institutions, persons and intermediaries from adopting practices intended to circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures, rather than only Financial Institutions, persons and intermediaries located within the territory of Panama.
CR2 International legal framework: Jurisdictions should have exchange relationships in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners as committed to and that provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the Model CAA.
Panama’s international legal framework to exchange the information is in place, is consistent with the Model CAA and its Commentary and provides for exchange with all of Panama’s Interested Appropriate Partners (i.e. all jurisdictions that are interested in receiving information from Panama and that meet the required standard in relation to confidentiality and data safeguards) (SRs 2.1 – 2.3).
SR 2.1 Jurisdictions should have exchange agreements in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information.
Panama has exchange agreements that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information in effect with all its Interested Appropriate Partners.
SR 2.2 Such an exchange agreement should be put in place without undue delay, following the receipt of an expression of interest from an Interested Appropriate Partner.
Panama put in place its exchange agreements without undue delay.
SR 2.3 Jurisdictions should ensure that the exchange agreements in effect provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Panama’s exchange agreements provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice
The detailed findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice of AEOI for Panama are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and then per sub-requirement (SR) as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions correctly implement the due diligence and reporting procedures, which includes a requirement for jurisdictions to have in place an administrative framework to ensure the effective implementation of the CRS.
Panama’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is non-compliant with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions are correctly conducting the due diligence and reporting procedures. More specifically, while Panama is overall meeting expectations with respect to its international collaboration to ensure effectiveness (SR 1.6), there are fundamental issues with respect to Panama ensuring effectiveness in a domestic context, such as through having an effective administrative compliance framework and related procedures (SR 1.5). Panama should continue its implementation process to ensure its effectiveness, including by addressing the recommendations made.
SR 1.5 Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions identify the Financial Accounts they maintain, identify the Reportable Accounts among those Financial Accounts, as well as their Account Holders, and where relevant Controlling Persons, by correctly conducting the due diligence procedures and collect and report the required information with respect to each Reportable Account. This includes having in place:
an effective administrative compliance framework to ensure the effective implementation of, and compliance with, the CRS. This framework should:
be based on a strategy that facilitates compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions and which is informed by a risk assessment in respect of the effective implementation of the CRS that takes into account relevant information sources (including third party sources);
include procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions correctly apply the definitions of Reporting Financial Institutions and Non-Reporting Financial Institutions;
include procedures to periodically verify Reporting Financial Institutions’ compliance, conducted by authorities that have adequate powers with respect to the reviewed Reporting Financial Institutions, with procedures to access the records they maintain; and
effective procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries do not circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures;
effective enforcement mechanisms to address non-compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions;
strong measures to ensure that valid self-certifications are always obtained for New Accounts;
effective procedures to ensure that each, or each type of, jurisdiction-specific Non-Reporting Financial Institution and Excluded Account continue to present a low risk of being used to evade tax; and
effective procedures to follow up with a Reporting Financial Institution when undocumented accounts are reported in order to establish the reasons why such information is being reported.
In order to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, Panama implemented some of the requirements in accordance with expectations. However, fundamental issues were identified. The key findings were as follows:
Panama lacks a complete overarching strategy to ensure compliance with the AEOI Standard. While some education, verification and enforcement activities are planned or carried out, they are not based on a systematic risk assessment that includes all institutions responsible for ensuring compliance with the AEOI Standard and that takes into account relevant information sources. There are only some risks considered, such as information communicated to Panama by partner jurisdictions, reputational risks of the Financial Institutions and the number of accounts reported.
Panama has designated the DGI as the main authority in charge of ensuring compliance with the AEOI Standard. To discharge its responsibilities, the DGI works jointly with other regulatory authorities, with which it shares the supervisory responsibilities. These authorities are the SBP, the SMV and the SSRR. So far, Panama has put in place a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the DGI and the SBP, which includes details of the supervisory activities in relation to the AEOI Standard to be carried out by the SBP. Under the MoU, the DGI outlines the supervisory activities that the SBP should carry out and the SBP is required to inform the DGI of the results. It is not yet clear, however, if the SBP has the knowledge and training to carry out the activities. Furthermore, MoUs with the other two regulatory authorities are still in the process of being put in place. The DGI is seeking to monitor all Financial Institutions in the meantime.
While Panama is working on various amendments to its legal framework to clarify some aspects of the framework that have been identified as uncertain in application, there does not appear to be any formalised plan or activity undertaken in the interim to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions are correctly applying those requirements of the AEOI Standard. This includes ensuring that the interaction between Panama’s AML and CRS frameworks always result in reporting in accordance with the AEOI Standard.
Panama has taken some action to understand its population of Reporting Financial Institutions by consulting the lists of Financial Institutions held by the regulatory authorities, information from the corporate registry and the Foreign Financial Institution list for FATCA purposes. This has been done for the first time in 2022 and it is planned to be performed annually. It is not clear whether non-regulated entities that are Financial Institutions in relation to the AEOI Standard are adequately covered. Panama has taken some action to ensure that Financial Institutions are classifying themselves correctly under its domestic rules or reporting information as required.
The institution responsible for implementing Panama’s compliance strategy, the DGI, has procedures to access the records of Reporting Financial Institutions, although the overall framework covering all relevant institutions is not yet in place. In terms of the resourcing of compliance activities, the DGI has assigned the equivalent of two full time staff to develop and implement its AEOI compliance strategy and to assist in legal interpretation, communications, reporting and exchanges, as well as to perform the verification activities. The DGI is planning to hire more personnel to work on compliance related to the AEOI Standard. The number of staff available at the SBP to carry out audits related to the AEOI Standard is not yet known.
Panama has carried out some activities to verify compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions. These have largely been in response to issues raised by peers, including through the exchange of information on request, and cases randomly chosen from the accounts reported. The follow-up of cases identified through the reporting of nil reports is planned to be undertaken in the near future. Therefore, although some verification activities are taking place, it is not ensured they will be carried out systematically in the future.
Panama appears to have procedures in place to apply penalties and sanctions for non-compliance when it is identified and it has recently amended its legal framework to provide for higher sanctions for non-compliance with the obligations under the AEOI Standard. Although no sanctions have yet been applied, Panama has identified some cases that will be subject to sanctions.
Panama does not have a defined plan to ensure self-certifications are obtained as required, nor does it have a plan to follow up on undocumented accounts when they are reported.
Panama has taken action to address a possible circumvention scheme, although it is not clear whether it has procedures to address circumvention of the AEOI Standard by Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries in all cases. This partially reflects the lack of the legal powers to do so in all possible circumstances.
Panama has one category of Non-Reporting Financial Institution that has been recommended to be removed from its jurisdiction-specific list of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions. It is noted that Panama does not have a jurisdiction-specific list of Excluded Accounts for ongoing monitoring.
Table 3 provides a summary of the specific activities undertaken, or that are planned to be undertaken, in relation to each of the key parts of the framework described above.
Panama was not able to confirm that it collects and monitors information on the proportion of Financial Accounts that are reported that include information on the Tax Identification Numbers and/or dates of birth with respect to the individuals associated with them. These data points are key to exchange partners to effectively utilise the information and are important to developing an effective compliance strategy to ensure the AEOI Standard is being effectively implemented.
Panama was not able to confirm that it collects and monitors information on the number of undocumented accounts reported by its Reporting Financial Institutions. This information is crucial to implementing the requirement to follow up on undocumented accounts.
More generally, many of the exchange partners that received a significant number of records from Panama indicated that they achieved a success rate when matching the information received from Panama with their taxpayer database that was broadly equivalent to, or better than, what they usually achieve.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama is not meeting expectations in ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, including by having in place the required administrative compliance framework and related procedures. More specifically, fundamental issues have been identified, including with respect to the lack of a systematic risk assessment to inform its compliance strategy, the lack of a wide range of information sources to identify its population of Reporting Financial Institutions, the lack of a systematic approach to verify compliance, the limited number of activities undertaken so far and the failure to monitor the key information points, such as the rates of collection of Tax Information Numbers, dates of birth and undocumented accounts. Panama should therefore continue its implementation process accordingly, including by addressing the recommendations made.
Panama should further develop and implement an overarching and defined compliance strategy to underpin its compliance activities, informed by a risk assessment, which takes into account a range of relevant information sources. It should include policies and procedures covering all institutions that will be ensuring compliance with the AEOI Standard and all of the key areas to its effective implementation.
Panama should further implement its procedures to identify its population of Financial Institutions to ensure that they correctly apply the definitions of Reporting Financial Institutions and Non-Reporting Financial Institutions and report information as required and expand the information sources it uses to identify non-regulated entities that are Financial Institutions for the purposes of the AEOI Standard to ensure they report information as required.
Panama should ensure that all of the authorities responsible for the verification of Reporting Financial Institution compliance engage effectively with one another to ensure the effective implementation of the AEOI Standard.
Panama should further develop and implement its plan to verify compliance to include a systematic selection of cases subject to review, areas of uncertainly in relation to the application of its legal framework in practice and the interaction between its AML and AEOI frameworks to ensure it always results in the collection and reporting of information in accordance with the AEOI Standard.
Panama should implement systems to collect and monitor information on the reporting of Tax Identification Numbers, dates of birth and undocumented accounts to inform its compliance strategy.
Panama should put in place a clearly defined policy to ensure that, where circumvention of the AEOI Standard is identified, action is taken to address it in all cases. Reference is made to the recommendation made when assessing Panama’s legal frameworks implementing the AEOI Standard.
Panama should develop and implement effective procedures to monitor and verify whether Reporting Financial Institutions are obtaining valid self-certifications as required.
Panama should implement mechanisms to identify Reporting Financial Institutions that report undocumented accounts and develop and implement a clearly defined policy to follow up with them to ensure that the requirements are being complied with.
SR 1.6 Jurisdictions should collaborate on compliance and enforcement. This requires jurisdictions to:
use all appropriate measures available under the jurisdiction’s domestic law to address errors or non-compliance notified to the jurisdiction by an exchange partner; and
have in place effective procedures to notify an exchange partner of errors that may have led to incomplete or incorrect information reporting or non-compliance with the due diligence or reporting procedures by a Reporting Financial Institution in the jurisdiction of the exchange partner.
In order to collaborate on compliance and enforcement, it appears that Panama implemented all of the requirements in relation to issues notified to them (i.e. under Section 4 of the MCAA or equivalent) in accordance with expectations. In particular, Panama received notifications from three partners (representing 4% of its partners) and successfully processed them in a timely manner, resolving the issues raised. It also appears that Panama will notify its partners of errors or suspected non-compliance it identifies when utilising the information received.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama is fully meeting expectations in relation to collaborating with its exchange partners to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures. Panama is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
CR2 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should exchange the information effectively in practice, in a timely manner, including by sorting, preparing, validating and transmitting it in accordance with the AEOI Standard.
Panama’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is partially compliant with respect to exchanging the information effectively in practice and in a timely manner. More specifically, while Panama is meeting expectations with respect to sorting, preparing and validating the information (SR 2.4), and providing corrections, amendments or additions to the information (SR 2.9), there are significant issues with respect to Panama correctly transmitting the information and in a timely manner (SRs 2.5 – 2.8). While Panama has shown an improvement over time, Panama should continue its implementation process to ensure its effectiveness, including by addressing the recommendations made.
SR 2.4 Jurisdictions should sort, prepare and validate the information in accordance with the CRS XML Schema and the associated requirements in the CRS XML Schema User Guide and the File Error and Correction-related validations in the Status Message User Guide (i.e. the 50000 and 80000 range).
Five (or 8%) of Panama’s exchange partners reported rejecting more than 25% of the files received, of which four reported rejecting 50% or more of the files received, due to the technical requirements not being met. This is a relatively high amount when compared to other jurisdictions and it has not improved over time. It was noted that Panama is working to solve at least some of the issues.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama is partially meeting expectations in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information. However, significant issues have been identified, including with respect to the procedures to sort, prepare and validate the information before it is sent to partners and with respect to contacting partners when issues have been raised. Panama should therefore continue its implementation process accordingly, including by addressing the recommendations made.
Panama should work with its exchange partners to address the issues raised.
Panama should review its procedures to sort, prepare and validate the information to ensure they meet the requirements of the AEOI Standard.
SR 2.5 Jurisdictions should agree and use, with each exchange partner, transmission methods that meet appropriate minimum standards to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the data throughout the transmission, including its encryption to a minimum secure standard.
In order to put in place an agreed transmission method that meets appropriate minimum standards in confidentiality, integrity of the data and encryption for use with each of its exchange partners, Panama linked to the CTS.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama is fully meeting expectations in relation to agreeing and using appropriate transmission methods with each of its partners. Panama is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.6 Jurisdictions should carry out all exchanges annually within nine months of the end of the calendar year to which the information relates.
Feedback from Panama’s exchange partners did not raise any concerns with respect to timeliness of the exchanges by Panama and therefore with respect to Panama’s implementation of this requirement.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama fully is meeting expectations in relation to exchanging information in a timely manner. Panama is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation
SR 2.7 Jurisdictions should send the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards.
Feedback from Panama’s exchange partners did not raise any concerns with respect to Panama’s use of the agreed transmission methods and therefore with Panama’s implementation of this requirement.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama is fully meeting expectations in relation to sending the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards. Panama is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.8 Jurisdictions should have the systems in place to receive information and, once it has been received, should send a status message to the sending jurisdictions in accordance with the CRS Status Message XML Schema and the related User Guide.
Fifteen exchange partners highlighted delays in the sending of status messages by Panama, representing 19% of its partners. This represents a very high proportion of partners and has only slightly improved over time. Panama noted that it is experiencing technical issues with the sending of status messages and that it is working to solve them. As a provisional solution, it has notified some partners manually that the information has been received. While Panama is working on solving the issues and is engaging with some of its partners, it has still not yet sent some of the status messages due to be sent in 2021, as well as some that were due to be sent in prior years.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama is partially meeting expectations in relation to the receipt of the information. However, significant issues have been identified, including with respect to the sending of status messages to its exchange partners. Panama should continue its implementation process to ensure its effectiveness, including by addressing the recommendations made.
Panama should continue to engage with its exchange partners to address the issues raised.
Panama should ensure it send status messages to all of its exchange partners in a timely manner.
SR 2.9 Jurisdictions should respond to a notification from an exchange partner as referred to in Section 4 of the Model CAA (which may include Status Messages) in accordance with the timelines set out in the Commentary to Section 4 of the Model CAA. In all other cases, jurisdictions should send corrected, amended or additional information received from a Reporting Financial Institution as soon as possible after it has been received.
Panama appears ready to respond to notifications and to provide corrected, amended or additional information in a timely manner and no such concerns were raised by Panama’s exchange partners and therefore with respect to Panama’s implementation of these requirements.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Panama is fully meeting expectations in relation to responding to notifications from exchange partners and the sending of corrected, amended or additional information. Panama is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.