Silviase/jgov_v1.4_full_ann huggingface dataset:
viewpoints such as law, regulation or control regime for anti-money laundering, and investigation of money laundering crime. In the context of the procedures regulated by the FATF, those countries subject to assessment, which have received at least one PC (partially compliant) or NC (non-compliant) in the core recommendations (Recommendations 1, 5, 10, and 13 and Special Recommendations II and IV) are subject to the regular follow-up process, and they must periodically report the progress of improvement and overall statistics at Plenary Meetings.

And in the case where the Plenary agrees that the assessed countries have implemented 16 Recommendations (in addition to 6 core Recommendations, Recommendation 3, 4, 23, 26, 35, 36, 40 and Special Recommendation I, III, V) at a level essentially equivalent to a C (compliant) or LC (largely compliant), the countries will be removed from the follow-up process. Countries subject to assessment are encouraged to make necessary improvements and to seek removal from the follow-up process within three years after the adoption of Mutual Evaluation.

## 3 Mutual Evaluation of Japan

In addition to Mutual Evaluations conducted by the FATF in 1994 and 1998, more recently a third Review was implemented over the latter half of 2007 through the latter half of 2008. JAFIC worked together with related government agencies on the Reviews.

## (1) Implementation of the Third Mutual Evaluation

The main process and procedure of the FATF Mutual Evaluation of assessed countries are as follows:

1. Response to the Mutual Evaluation Questionnaire (MEQ),

2. On-site visit to directly confirm the actual status of countries subject to assessment by assessors.

3. Discussion at the FATF Plenary Meeting.

Japan provided the response to the MEQ in January 2008, and underwent on-site visit in Tokyo and Osaka in March of the same year. In October 2008, at the Plenary Meeting in Brazil, the third round of Mutual Evaluation was concluded.

## (2) Overview of the Third Round Mutual Evaluation

For each of 40 Recommendations and 9 Special Recommendations, there are four possible levels of compliance: C (Compliant), LC (Largely Compliant), PC (Partially Compliant) and NC (Non-Compliant). As shown in Table 6-1, Japan was rated at C for 4 Recommendations, LC for 19, PC for 15, and NC for 10 (besides these Recommendations, there was one that was not applicable to Japan (N/A)).

With regard to the evaluation of FIU of Japan, the relevant recommendation (Recommendation 26) was rated at LC, referring to that much more human resources should have been allocated while the institutional change where all FIU functions were transplanted from the Financial Services Agency to the National Public Safety Commission/the National Police Agency was positively taken.

As for the recommendation regarding customer due diligence (CDD) by financial institutions (Recommendation 5), the mutual evaluation report pointed out that the measures
such as verification of the beneficial owner and purpose of transaction, and ongoing due diligence, should be directly regulated by laws or regulations, or other enforceable means, and the additional customer identification methods should be introduced in case of identifying a customer without a photo ID (Rating: NC) (see Figure 6-1).

Since the results of every evaluation are to be published, the third round mutual evaluation report of Japan is also on the FATF website (http://www.fatf-gafi.org/) and the Ministry of Finance website (http://www.mof.go.jp/international_policy/convention/fatf/fatfhoudou_201030.htm).

## (3) Follow-up of the Third Round Mutual Evaluation

Regular Follow-up procedures were applied to Japan as Recommendation 5 and Special Recommendation II were rated NC or PC. Since the Mutual Evaluation, Japan has been actively making efforts to remedy the deficiencies identified in the Mutual Evaluation Report by, for instance, holding “the Related Ministry Liaison Conference regarding Implementation of the FATF Recommendations”.

Especially with regard to the deficiency related to CDD which was rated NC, it was significantly improved by imposing obligations regarding verification of the purpose of transactions, the beneficial owner and other matters after the full enforcement of the amended Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds in April 2013, following its promulgation in April 2011. With regard to this progress, follow-up reports have been submitted to the FATF Plenary Meeting seven times, in October 2010, October 2011, June 2012, October 2012, February 2013, June 2013, and October 2013. That reporting will be continued to update progress made at that time.

## (4) Start of the Fourth Round FATF Mutual Evaluation

Following the completion of the new version of “the 40 Recommendations” in 2012, the assessment methodology was also consolidated in February 2013. Accordingly, the fourth round FATF Mutual Evaluation started in the same year (the implementation period of the Mutual Evaluation of Japan has not been determined yet).

## 4 JAFLC's Participation

As one of the founding members of the FATF, Japan has been a very active contributor to

its work since its establishment in 1989. Japan had participated in tri-annual Plenary Meetings and working groups which conduct analysis of money laundering typologies, and chaired the plenary between July 1998 and June 1999. Since JAfic started to take the responsibility as Japan Flu, it has continued robust efforts even more, to lead the global AML/CFT standard setter to a better way at every meeting of the Plenary or working group.

FATF Plenary Meeting (France)
Table 6-1 Overview of the “40 Recommendations” and “9 Special Recommendations,” and Results of the Third FATF Mutual Evaluation of Japan

Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation	Rating	Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation	Rating
40 Recommendations	23	Supervisory obligation for financial-institutions	LC
1	Money laundering offence	LC	24	Supervisory obligation for DNFBP	PC
2	Money laundering offence - mental element and corporate liability	LC	25	Guideline & feedback	LC
3	Confiscation and provisional measures	LC	26	FIU	LC
4	Secrecy laws consistent with the Recommendations	C	27	Investigation for money laundering and terrorist financing	LC
5	Customer due diligence (financial institutions)	NC	28	Power of competent authorities	C
29	Supervisory authorities	LC
6	Individuals who are or have been entrusted with prominent public function in a foreign country	NC	30	Resources, integrity and training	LC
31	National cooperation	LC
7	Correspondent banking	NC	32	Statistics	LC
8	Misuse of new technologies & non face-to-face business	PC	33	Legal person-beneficial owners	NC
34	Legal arrangements (trust) - beneficial owners	NC
9	Rely on third parties and introducers for Customer due diligence	N/A	35	Convention	PC
10	Obligation to maintain records of customer identification and transaction record	LC	36	Mutual legal assistance	PC
37	Dual criminality	PC
11	Obligation to pay special attention for unusual transaction	PC	38	Mutual legal assistance on confiscation and freezing	LC
12	Customer due diligence by DNFBP (designated non-financial businesses and professions)	NC	39	Extradition	PC
40	International cooperation (information exchange with foreign counterparts)	LC
13	Suspicious Transaction Report by financial institutions (STRs)	LC
14	Obligation to protect reporter	LC	9 Special Recommendations
15	Obligation to maintain internal controls	NC	I	Implement United Nation instruments	PC
16	Suspicious Transaction Report by DNFBP	PC	II	Criminalist terrorist financing	PC
III	Freeze and confiscate terrorist assets	PC
17	Sanction for non-compliance	LC
18	Shell bank (bank incorporated in a jurisdiction in which it has no physical presence)	PC	IV	Suspicious transaction reporting related to terrorism	LC
V	International cooperation for terrorism	PC
19	Other forms of reporting	C	VI	Money/value transfer services	PC
20	Other DNFBP & secure transaction technique	C	VII	Wire transfer rules	LC
21	Special attention for higher risk countries	NC	VIII	Non profit organization (NPO)	PC
IX	Cross border declaration & disclosure (Cash courier)	NC
22	Foreign branches & subsidiaries	NC

Note: Evaluation levels are as follows:

C: Compliant, LC: Largely Compliant, PC: Partially Compliant, NC: Non-compliant, N/A: Not applicable,
Table 6-2 Overview of the New “40 Recommendations”

New Recommendation	Old Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation	New Recommendation	Old Recommendation	Outline of Recommendation
1	—	Assessing risks & applying a risk-based approach	22	12	DNFBPs: Customer due diligence
23	16	DNFBPs: Other measures
2	31	National cooperation and coordination	24	33	Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal persons
3	12	Money laundering offence	25	34	Transparency and beneficial ownership of legal arrangements
4	3	Confiscation and provisional measures	26	23	Regulation and supervision of financial institutions
5	II	Terrorist financing offence
6	III	Targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism & terrorist financing	27	29	Powers of supervisors
28	24	Regulation and supervision of DNFBPs
7	—	Targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation	29	26	Financial intelligence units
8	VIII	Non profit organisations (NPO)	30	27	Responsibilities of law enforcement and investigative authorities
9	4	Financial institution secrecy laws
10	5	Customer due diligence	31	28	Powers of law enforcement and investigative authorities
11	10	Record keeping	32	IX	Cash couriers
12	6	Politically exposed persons	33	32	Statistics
13	7	Correspondent banking	34	25	Guidance and feedback
14	VI	Money or value transfer services	35	17	Sanctions
15	8	New technologies	36	35	International instruments
16	VII	Wire transfers
17	9	Reliance on third parties	37	36	Mutual legal assistance
18	15	Internal controls and foreign branches and subsidiaries	38	38	Mutual legal assistance: freezing and confiscation
19	21	Higher-risk countries
20	13	Reporting of suspicious transactions	39	39	Extradition
21	IV	40	40	International cooperation (information exchange with foreign counterparts)
21	14	Tipping-off and confidentiality

Note: “New Recommendation” refers to the New “40 Recommendations,” while “Old Recommendations” indicates the numbers of the old “40 Recommendations” and the “9 Special Recommendations.” The Arabian numbers under the “Old Recommendations” refer to the “40 Recommendations,” while the Greek numbers are the Recommendation numbers for the “9 Special Recommendations.” “-” indicates a new Recommendations.
## Paragraph 2 APG

## 1 APG

The APG (Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering) is an international cooperative body whose establishment was decided in February 1997 at the FATF 4th Asia/Pacific Money Laundering Symposium held in Thailand to promote anti-money laundering measures in non-FATF member jurisdictions in the Asia/Pacific region.

As of the end of December 2013, the APG consists of 41 jurisdictions, including Japan.

## 2 Activities

The main activities of the APG are as follows.

1. Promotion of compliance with the FATF Recommendations in the Asia/Pacific region

2. Promotion of legislation on AML/CFT in the APG member jurisdictions

3. Mutual Evaluations on the APG member jurisdictions

4. Information exchange and analysis on the trend of money laundering in the Asia/Pacific region

## 3 JAfic's participation

Japan is one of the founding members of the APG and has been actively contributing to the activities of the APG, much as it has with the FATF. For example, the first Plenary Meeting and second typology meeting were both held in Tokyo in March 1998 and March 1999 respectively. Japan took on the co-chair with Australia between July 2004 and June 2006. Since its establishment, JAFIC has continued to work on the APG and join many discussions on policy making or typology studies especially the

APG Typology Meeting (Mongol)

latest ML/TF trend being looking at from Flu's perspective.

## Paragraph 3 Egmont Group

## 1 Egmont Group

The Egmont Group is an international forum established mainly by FlUs of several European nations and the United States in April 1995 with the goal of promoting cooperation on information exchange, trainings and expertise between FlUs around the world engaging in AML measures. The group is named after the Egmont castle in Belgium where the first plenary session was held. Although the Egmont Group was established as an informal forum at the beginning, it has become an internationally recognized official body at present, through the adoption of the Egmont Group Charter at the May 2007 annual plenary in Bermuda and the
establishment of its permanent Secretariat in Toronto, Canada.

The Egmont Group revised its charter in light of the growing needs for close international cooperation between FlUs due to increasing sophistication and complexity of money laundering around the world; its increasingly diverse functions; and the inclusion of the enhancement of the FlUs' functions and a system of international cooperation in FATF's new "40 Recommendations." A new charter that better specifies the objectives and role of the Egmont Group was adopted at an annual plenary held in South Africa in July 2013.

The Egmont Group consists of FLUs of 139 jurisdictions as of the end of December 2013.

## 2 Activities of the Egmont Group

In addition to the annual Plenary Meeting which representatives from all member FlUs attend, the Egmont Group has the following working groups, which are held twice a year.

1. The Legal Working Group (LWG) reviews the candidacy of potential members and handles all legal aspects and matters of principle within Egmont members.

2. The Outreach Working Group (OWG), works to create a global network of FIUs by identifying candidates for membership and working with those countries to ensure that they meet international standards

3. The Training Working Group (TWG) develops training methods for Flu personnel, and conducts training seminars for Egmont members as well as for non-Egmont jurisdictions.

4. The Operational Working Group (OpWG) seeks to bring FIUs together on typologies development and long-term strategic analytical project.

5. The IT Working Group (ITWG) provides advice and research analysis support software for IT systems of the new and existing FlUs.

## 3 JAfic's Participation

Upon establishing JAFIO in February 2000 within the Financial Supervisory Agency (later the Financial Services Agency) as a Japanese version of FIU, Japan applied for membership in the Egmont Group, and was granted it in May 2000 at the 8th annual plenary held in Panama.

Since then, JAFIO has actively participated in the activities of the Egmont Group. It sent staff members to working group meetings and the Plenary Meetings, and took part in the drafting of the Egmont Group Charter.

Egmont Group Meeting (South Africa)

JAFIO also undertook the role of FIU for supporting the application procedures (in co-sponsorship with the Thailand FIU) (hereinafter referred to as "sponsor FIU") for Myanmar FIU, which is currently not yet an Egmont Group member.

JAFIC, which took over the functions of Japan FIU from JAFIO in April 2007, was granted
the Egmont Group membership as the new Japan Flu at the 15th Plenary Meeting held in Bermuda in May 2007.

After joining the Egmont Group, JAFIC has sent its members to both the annual meetings and working groups to participate in the discussions on the principles related to information exchange between FIUs and other matters.

Moreover, JAFIC has taken over the role of sponsor FIU for the FIU of Myanmar in the application procedures into the Egmont Group from JAFIO and accepted the role of sponsor FIU for Pakistan FIU (in co-sponsorship with the U.S. FIU) at the request of the Egmont Group in 2011. In 2012, JAFIC sent staff members to Pakistan for a joint onsite survey with an U.S. FIU staff member regarding Pakistan FIU's membership qualification.

## Section 2 Progress of the International Cooperation in 2013

## Paragraph 1 Participation in the Activities of International Organizations

Table 6-3 presents that JAFIC has been actively participating in the activities of international organizations by sending its members to each occasion.

Table 6-3 Participation in the Activities of International Organizations in 2012

Month	Name of meeting	Location
FATF	February	Plenary Meeting	Paris (France)
June	Plenary Meeting	Oslo (Norway)
October	Plenary Meeting	Paris (France)
APG	July	Annual Meeting	Shanghai (China)
August	Workshop	Seoul (Korea)
September	Typology Meeting	Ulan Bator (Mongol)
Egmont Group	January	Working Group	Ostende (Belgium)
July	Annual Meeting	Sun City (South Africa)

## Paragraph 2 Information Exchange with Foreign FlUs

## 1 Establishment of the Framework for Exchange of Information

It is necessary to exchange information on suspicious transactions with foreign FlUs timely in order to detect money laundering by appropriately tracing criminal proceeds or terrorist financing transferred across borders.

On the other hand, Article 13 of the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds stipulates that the National Public Safety Commission (for which JAfic serves as a secretariat)
may disseminate information on suspicious transactions to foreign FlUs on condition that there is a framework governing the restrictions on the use of the disclosed information in foreign countries.

In response, JAFIC has established the necessary framework by exchanging a document specifying the restrictions on the use of disclosed information and other matters with foreign FlUs.

JAFIC has been coping with the negotiations for setting the frameworks for information exchange with numerous foreign FIUs in order to constructively exchange necessary information with them.

From its establishment of April 2007 till the end of 2013, JAFIC has set the frameworks for information exchange with the FlUs of 70 jurisdictions. (See Table 6-4).

Establishment of Framework with Turkmenistan FIU

Establishment of Framework with Seychelles FIU

Table 6-4 [Countries and regions with which JAFIC has set the Frameworks for Information Exchange between FlUs]

Year of Agreement	Countries and Regions
2007	Hong Kong, Thailand, Malaysia, Belgium, Australia, U.S., Singapore, Canada, Indonesia, U.K., Brazil, Philippines
2008	Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, Korea, Romania
2009	Paraguay, France, Qatar
2010	Turkey, Mexico, Luxembourg, Chile, Finland, India
2011	Nigeria, China, Cambodia, Macau, Cyprus, Argentina, Spain, San Marino
2012	Montenegro, Netherlands, Germany, Cayman Islands, Czech, Mongolia, Aruba, Colombia, Lebanon, Sweden, Peru, Armenia
2013	British Virgin Islands, Malta, Israel, Bermuda, Liechtenstein, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Denmark, Bolivia, Russia, Slovenia, Seychelles, Senegal, Costa Rica, Bahrain, Latvia, Vietnam, Turkmenistan, Poland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, New Zealand, Nepal
## 2 Status of Information Sharing

JAFIC exchanges suspicious transaction information with foreign FlUs in a positive and expeditious manner.

JAfic has strengthened the systems of analysis and as a result, there is greater sharing of information with foreign FlUs.

In 2013 regarding strange or unreasonable money transfers to and from foreign countries, which analyses on information of suspicious transaction have revealed, JAFIC, for further analysis, made 159 requests to relevant foreign FlUs for information such as the flow of funds transferred out of Japan, the source of remittance from abroad etc.

In addition to these requests for information, FlUs in various countries are voluntarily exchanging information which are considered beneficial in preventing ML/TF.

The number of cases where JAFIC exchanged information with foreign FIUs in 2013 totaled 281, was the largest ever (See Table 6-5).

Table 6-5 Number of information sharings between JAFIC and foreign FLUs

Year Category	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Number of requests for information from foreign FIUs to JAFIC	47	54	63	53	73
Number of requests for information from JAFIC to foreign FIUs	51	78	136	100	159
Number of spontaneous disclosure from foreign FIUs to JAFIC	18	23	18	29	28
Number of spontaneous disclosure from JAFIC to foreign FIUs	6	7	16	9	21
Total	122	162	233	191	281

## 3 Discussions

In order to facilitate exchange of information, JAFIC has carried out various activities such as learning how foreign FIUs analyze information and how foreign investigative authorities utilize the funds information etc. JAFIC has also conducted discussions, for the activation of future exchange of information, by visiting FIUs of jurisdictions where there is a need for close coordination especially from the viewpoint of countermeasures against ML/TF, as well as FIUs of other jurisdictions where there is no framework for information exchange.

The following presents the discussions held with foreign FLUs and international organizations in 2013:

February: Information sharing session with Macau FlU (Macau)

March: Information sharing session with Thailand Flu (Bangkok)

Information sharing session with Sri Lanka Flu (Colombo)

Discussion with Seychelles Flu (Victoria)
Discussion with Russia FIU (Moscow)

Information sharing session with Denmark FlU (Copenhagen)

May: Discussion with Brunei Flu (Tokyo)

June: Discussion with Costa Rica Flu (San Jose)

Discussion with Panama Flu (Panama City)

Discussion with Vietnam Flu (Hanoi)

Discussion with Nepal FIU (Kathmandu)

August: Information sharing session with Bahrain FIU (Manama)

Information sharing session with Thailand FIU (Tokyo)

September: Information sharing session with Turkmenistan Flu (Tokyo)

November: Information sharing session with Isle of Man Flu (Douglas)

Information sharing session with Jersey Flu (Saint Helier)

Information sharing session with Guernsey Flu (St. Peter Port)

December: Information sharing session with Germany FIU (Wiesbaden)

Information sharing session with China FIU (Beijing)

Information sharing session with Macau FIU

Information sharing session with Sri Lanka Flu

Information sharing session with Jersey FlU

Information sharing session with China Flu
# 昭 和 46 年 度 政 府 関 係 機 関 予 算

(昭和 46 年度政府関係機関予算参照書添付)

第 65 回 国 会 ( 常 会 ) 提 出
## 総目録

## 昭和46年度政府関係機関予算

予算総則

甲号 收入 支出 予算

丁号債務負担行為

(添付)

昭和46年度政府関係機関予算参照書

昭和46年度政府関係機関収入支出予定計算書等

(参考)

コード番号について

203
## (添 付)

## 昭和46年度政府関係機関予算参照書目録

昭和46年度政府関係機関収入支出予定計算書等

日本 専 売 公 社
23

甲号収入支出予定計算書
23

丁号債務負担行為要求書
27

日本 国有 鉄 道
43

甲号収入支出予定計算書
43

損 益 勘 定
43

資 本 勘 定
46

工 事 勘 定
48

丁号債務負担行為要求書
50

日本 電 信 電 話 公 社
65

甲号収入支出予定計算書
65

損 益 勘 定
65

資 本 勘 定
68

建 設 勘 定
70

丁号債務負担行為要求書
72

国 民 金 融 公 庫
85

甲号収入支出予定計算書
85

住 宅 金 融 公 庫
95

甲号収入支出予定計算書
95

農 林 漁 業 金 融 公 庫
109

甲号収入支出予定計算書
109

中 小 企 業 金 融 公 庫
123

甲号収入支出予定計算書
123

北海 道東 北開 発 公 庫
135

甲号収入支出予定計算書
135

公 营 企 業 金 融 公 庫
145

甲号収入支出予定計算書
145

中小企业信用保険公庫
155

甲号収入支出予定計算書
155

医 療 金 融 公 庫
165

甲号収入支出予定計算書
165

環 境 衛 生 金 融 公 庫
175

甲号収入支出予定計算書
175
日本開発銀行	183
甲号収入支出予定計算書	183
日本輸出入銀行	191
甲号収入支出予定計算書	191
(參考)
コード番号について	203
昭 和 46 年 度 政 府 関 係 機 関 予 算
# 昭 和 46 年 度 政 府 関 係 機 関 予 算

## 予算総則

第1章 総則

( 收入支出预算 )

第１条 次に掲げる各政府関係機関の昭和４６年度収入支出予算は、「甲号収入支出予算」に掲げるとおりとする。

日 本 専 壳 公 社

日本国有鉄道

日本電信電話公社

国 民 金 融 公 庫

住宅金融公庫

農 林 漁 業 金 融 公 庫

中 小 企 業 金 融 公 庫

北海道東北開発公庫

公 营 企 業 金 融 公 庫

中小企業信用保險公庫

医療金融公庫

環境衛生金融公庫

日 本 開 発 銀 行

日 本 輸 出 入 銀 行

第2章 日本 専 売 公 社

（債務負担行為）

第2条「日本専売公社法」(以下この章において「専売公社法」という。)第35条第1項の規定により昭和46年度において日本専売公社(以下この章において

「専売公社」という。)が債務を負担する行為は、「丁号債務負担行為」に掲げるとおりとする。
(災害復旧等債務負担行為の限度額)

第3条 専売公社法第35条第2項の規定により昭和46年度において災害復旧その他緊急の必要がある場合に専売公社が債務を負担する行為の限度額は、100,000千円とする。

(借入金の限度額)

第4条 専売公社法第43条の14第2項の規定による長期借入金の限度額は140,000,000千円、短期借入金の限度額は200,000,000千円とする。

( 収入支出予算の弾力条項)

第5条 専売公社において、事業量の増加等により収入金額が予算額に比して増加するときは、大蔵大臣の承認を受けて、その増加する金額を限度として事業のため直接必要な経費を増額することができる。

(流用等の制限)

第6条 専売公社がその経費の金額を相互に流用し、若しくはその経費に他の経費の金額を流用し、又はその経費に予備費を使用する場合において、専売公社法第43条の2の規定により大蔵大臣の承認を受けなければならない経費は、次に掲げるとおりとする。

(1) 役員に対して支給する給与に要する経費

(2) 職員に対して支給する基本給、扶養手当及び暫定手当(以下「基準内給与」と総称する。)に要する経費

（３）職員に対して支給する通勤手当、特殊勤務手当、宿日直手当、期末手当、奨励手当、寒冷地手当、住居手当、超過勤務手当、休職者給与その他専売公社が大蔵大臣の承認を受けて定める手当(以下この章において「基準外給与」と総称する。)に要する経費

(4) 補助金及び交付金に要する経費

(5) 交際費に要する経費

2 前項に規定するもののほか、専売公社法第43条の2の規定により専売公社が大蔵大臣の承認を受けなければならない経費は、施設費と他の経費との間にその金額を相互に流用し、又は施設費に予備費を使用する場合におけるこれらの経費とする。

(繰越しの制限)

第7条 専売公社がその経費の金額を繰り越して使用する場合において、専売公社法第43条の3条の1項ただし書の規定により大蔵大臣の承認を受けなければならない経費は、次に掲げるとおりとする。

(1) 役員に対して支給する給与に要する経費

(2) 職員に対して支給する給与に要する経費