detected those were sought to be addressed. this had created complexities in their application and consequently affected compliance culture. there was therefore a need to review regulations comprehensively with the objective of making them simple and easy to follow. consequently, the revised regulatory framework bis central bankers ’ speeches has brought about only two levels of regulation viz., for those above the systemically important threshold and for those below. regulation for nbfcs - d will be similar to those applicable to systemically important nbfcs - nd, as protection of interest of depositors is one of the mandates of the reserve bank. nbfcs - d will additionally have to follow the direction on deposit acceptance, as hitherto. as regards the non - deposit taking nbfcs which are not systemically important, they will not be subjected to any regulation either prudential or conduct of business regulations viz., fair practices code ( fpc ), kyc, etc., if they have not accessed any public funds and do not have a customer interface ; those having customer interface will be subjected only to conduct of business regulations including fpc, kyc etc., if they are not accessing public funds ; those accepting public funds will be subjected to limited prudential regulations but not conduct of business regulations if they have no customer interface ; where both public funds are accepted and customer interface exist, such companies will be subjected both to limited prudential regulations and conduct of business regulations. however, registration under section 45 ia of the rbi act will be mandatory and they will be subjected to a simplified reporting system. 17. it is worthwhile to note that out of the 12, 029 nbfcs registered with the reserve bank, as many as 11, 598 will be regulated by this simplified regulatory framework. threshold for systemic significance 18. the basel committee on banking supervision and the financial stability board, the two international standards setting bodies, have defined what is a systemically important financial institution ( sifi ). they do not establish merely an asset size threshold for defining a systemically important financial institution ( sifi ). they have identified four major parameters for assessing whether a financial institution is systemically important viz., its size, its complexity, its interconnectedness, the lack of readily available substitutes for the financial infrastructure it provides. financial sector regulators in each jurisdiction are expected to identify sifis within their jurisdiction and make suitable laws, regulations and rules that would apply to those entities. the financial stability board

identified and to allocate our resources to areas that have the greatest impact in the fight against financial crime. while traditionally the financial sector was seen as the most vulnerable sector to ml / tf risks, in the face of heightened regulatory focus and more advanced aml / cft legislation and procedures governing this sector, money launderers started to resort to the nonfinancial sector to conceal their proceeds of crime. in response, the fatf increased its focus on the designated non - financial businesses and professions ( dnfbps ) that have similar potential to financial institutions to be used for money laundering. casinos, real estate agents, dealers in precious metals and stones, barristers, attorneys, notaries, accountants and trust and company service providers – referred to as the dnfbps in the fatf standards – are, since may 2019, subject to the same aml / cft requirements and preventive measures as financial institutions regulated by the bank of mauritius and the financial services commission. the need to enhance the regulatory and supervisory capabilities of the aml / cft supervisors of dnfbps can, thus, only be underscored. ladies and gentlemen, the scale and complexity of evolving financial products and technologies bring along new risks. to identify, evaluate, mitigate and monitor those risks, operators in the financial and non - financial sectors alike have to put in place robust risk management systems and ensure they are periodically upgraded. obviously regulators and supervisors have to keep pace with the rapid evolution of risk associated with new services, technologies and products. these require new resources and regular upgrading of skills both among supervisors of the financial and non - financial sectors. risk - based supervision is gradually taking precedence in aml / cft supervisors ’ approach around the globe. this approach is evidently much more data - centric and thus more demanding technically. risk - based supervisory frameworks require aml / cft supervisors to continuously identify, understand, assess and monitor the risk profiles of their licensees. these institutions are monitored both for compliance with the rules and how they approach and adopt risk management. ladies and gentlemen, let me now say a few words on what the bank of mauritius has been doing on aml / cft in recent year. the implementation of the risk - based approach was one of the key recommendations of the mutual evaluation report of 2018 to enhance the effectiveness of the aml / cft system. the bank of mauritius has spared no effort to set up an aml / cft