The definition of PEP in the AML-CFT Decision specifically lists the following roles as persons who always qualify as PEPs:

However, as there is no exhaustive list of the positions that qualify an individual as a PEP globally, the above list is not exhaustive and LFIs should use their discretion in identifying PEPs, and develop risk-based policies and procedures to ensure they appropriately identify customers who are PEPs, or the family members or close associates of PEPs.

For example, LFIs should use discretion in determining whether a customer who is government official or manager of a state-owned corporation is sufficiently “senior” to qualify as a PEP under the definition of the AML-CFT Decision. Not all public sector employees are PEPs. For example, a civil servant who sorts mail at the post office is unlikely to be a PEP, and although any public employee can carry some level of corruption risk, in such cases the risk is not sufficiently high to warrant special procedures. This distinction is captured in the AML-CFT Decision’s definition of a PEP as a natural person who has been awarded a “prominent public function.” At the same time, the decision whether or not to treat a customer as a PEP cannot be based solely on the customer’s title, rank, civil service grade, or other similar factors. It is also important to be aware that “prominent” is not simply equivalent to ‘famous’ or ‘well-known,’ and that individuals may be “entrusted” with a public function in a wide variety of ways, including by appointment, election, and promotion through the civil service.

Furthermore, LFIs should also be aware that high risks of corruption can exist even when a customer is not immediately qualifying as a PEP per definition. For example, the heads of large trade unions and professional associations are likely to wield political power without having been appointed to those roles by a government or international organization. LFIs may decide, in terms of their own risk appetite, to treat such individuals as PEPs.

The determination of whether a customer is a PEP should therefore consider a number of factors, including, most importantly, whether the natural person currently holds, or has recently held, a role that gives him or her power or influence over decisions, policy or the disbursal of funds belonging to a government or an international organization. Factors to consider when making this determination include the nature of the political and governance system in the country or international organization where the customer holds his or her position; roles and responsibilities within that system; authority over government decisions and activities, and access to government funds and assets (whether directly or indirectly such as through the awarding of government contracts).

PEPs are always natural persons. However, LFIs should perform a PEP analysis on customers who are the beneficial owners of legal persons or legal arrangements. Depending on the customer’s ownership and control structure, it may also be appropriate to perform a PEP analysis on the customer’s senior managing officer or senior management. Where risks are higher, for example, in the case of companies with complex structure and complex trust arrangements, LFIs should consider identifying beneficial owners below the 25% threshold mandated by the AML-CFT Decision. For example, a PEP and his spouse and three children may each own 15% of a company. No single family member would have to be identified as a beneficial owner under UAE law, but when their ownership shares are added together the family clearly exercises control over the company. Such a company would likely need to be subjected to the EDD requirements discussed in section 3.2.6.