Scholarlink

In March 2024, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) reaffirmed the prevention of terrorist financing as a principal compliance priority for the 2024–25 fiscal year. This continued emphasis is notable given the absence of documented cases of deregistration for terrorism-related breaches since the ACNC’s formation in 2012. This chapter critically interrogates the global regulatory emphasis on nonprofit organisations, arguing that the prioritisation of counter-terrorism financing (CTF) measures, driven largely by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, may lack contextual proportionality and empirical justification. It examines how national regulatory frameworks have increasingly internalised FATF directives, often in the absence of sector-specific risk evidence. Using Australia as a case study, the analysis contends that such regulatory orientation may impose excessive oversight on charitable entities, posing significant barriers to charity and NPO operation and diverting attention from more salient governance concerns.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Charities, Non-profit Organisations and the FATF: Testing the Evidence Base and Proportionality of Risk-Based Counter-Terrorist-Financing Regulation

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Jeanne Nel

摘要

In March 2024, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) reaffirmed the prevention of terrorist financing as a principal compliance priority for the 2024–25 fiscal year. This continued emphasis is notable given the absence of documented cases of deregistration for terrorism-related breaches since the ACNC’s formation in 2012. This chapter critically interrogates the global regulatory emphasis on nonprofit organisations, arguing that the prioritisation of counter-terrorism financing (CTF) measures, driven largely by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, may lack contextual proportionality and empirical justification. It examines how national regulatory frameworks have increasingly internalised FATF directives, often in the absence of sector-specific risk evidence. Using Australia as a case study, the analysis contends that such regulatory orientation may impose excessive oversight on charitable entities, posing significant barriers to charity and NPO operation and diverting attention from more salient governance concerns.