Research question two

The second research question was aimed to identify the effectiveness of SAFIU in coordinating activities with other agencies. The question was: What is the effectiveness of SAFIU in administering money laundering combating activities with other government and non-government agencies such as finance and banking institutions?.

Part two of the questionnaire consisted of 27 questions. The first subsection consisted of 18 questions tailored to measure the effectiveness of SAFIU in administering activities that combat money laundering and terrorism finance activities with other governmental and non-governmental agencies. The second subsection consisted of nine questions aimed to measure the effectiveness of SAFIU in coordinating activities that combat money laundering and terrorism finance crimes with other government and non-governmental agencies.

4.3.2.1.What is the effectiveness of SAFIU in administering activities with government and non-government institutions?

This section presents the respondents perception on the effectiveness of SAFIU in administering money laundering and terrorism financing crimes with other government and non-government agencies such as finance and banking institutions.

Analysis from the respondents indicated that SAFIU is very effective in controlling money laundering and terrorism financing crimes with other governmental and non- governmental agencies, such as banks and other financial institutions, with an overall average of 4.48. The three most effective areas were related to items 3 (mean = 5), 13 (mean = 5) and 12 (mean = 4.97). Results indicated that SAFIU is particularly effective in accessing law enforcement information, as well as confiscating property and freezing accounts that are associated with money laundering or terrorism financing activities. In addition, SAFIU is also considered effective in ensuring that the roles and responsibilities of government agencies are clear and specific. In relation to disseminating the latest information on money laundering and terrorism financing activities to government and non-government agencies, SAFIU was deemed least effective (mean = 3.85).

4.3.2.2.What is the effectiveness of SAFIU in administering activities with government and non-government institutions (Kruskal-Wallis Test)?

In the Kruskal-Wallis test, the null hypothesis was rejected at 5 per cent (0.05) significance level for question 2, 11, 16, 17 and 18 (test by number of training). The null hypothesis could not be rejected for other groupings, which suggests that staff members become more knowledgeable when provided with training. Table 11 demonstrates the effectives of SAFIU in administering activities with government and non-government institutions.

Table11: Kruskal-Wallis Test According to Age, Qualification, Training Attended and Experience

Grouping

Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18

Age N Mean Rank

< 30 years 28 36.3 38.2 37.5 37.4 35.7 37.6 34.6 36.4 39.0 41.0 37.0 35.9 37.5 36.9 36.1 38.1 35.5 37.6 30 < 40 years 29 34.1 37.8 37.5 32.5 37.2 33.0 37.4 37.7 34.3 34.2 35.6 38.5 37.5 37.1 36.4 34.4 34.4 33.2 40 < 50 years 15 45.8 34.9 37.5 44.4 41.0 47.6 42.5 39.0 40.4 36.9 40.9 38.5 37.5 38.6 41.1 43.3 45.2 44.0 50 and > 2 40.0 43.5 37.5 59.0 41.0 26.0 42.5 39.0 40.5 40.5 46.0 38.5 37.5 43.5 46.5 30.5 51.5 49.5 Chi- Square 4.62 0.62 0.00 6.19 2.53 7.30 4.10 1.41 1.90 1.96 1.73 3.33 0.00 0.55 1.72 2.19 4.80 4.66 p-value 0.20 0.89 1.00 0.10 0.47 0.06 0.25 0.70 0.59 0.58 0.63 0.34 1.00 0.91 0.63 0.53 0.19 0.20

Grouping

Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18

Qualification N Mean Rank

Secondary or less 6 34.6 37.3 37.5 22.4 28.7 32.0 36.3 32.8 40.3 43.0 28.2 32.3 37.5 31.2 29.4 25.3 29.0 29.0 Diploma 21 39.8 32.0 37.5 43.3 39.2 38.0 39.0 39.0 44.9 37.9 42.7 38.5 37.5 41.7 43.3 40.8 43.6 46.2 Bachelor 44 35.3 40.1 37.5 35.3 37.6 38.8 36.6 37.3 33.4 35.1 35.7 37.7 37.5 35.9 35.2 37.4 34.8 33.7 Master 3 60.0 37.3 37.5 59.0 41.0 26.0 42.5 39.0 40.5 58.5 46.0 38.5 37.5 43.5 46.5 40.3 51.5 49.5 Chi-Square 6.16 3.00 0.00 9.66 4.79 2.02 1.01 3.45 7.61 5.00 5.80 5.08 0.00 4.42 6.02 2.84 6.15 9.78 p-value 0.10 0.39 1.00 0.02 0.19 0.57 0.80 0.33 0.05 0.17 0.12 0.17 1.00 0.22 0.11 0.42 0.10 0.02 Grouping Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18

Training N Mean Rank

None 5 33.5 25.0 37.5 21.7 33.6 26.0 35.1 39.0 32.6 51.3 39.8 38.5 37.5 36.1 37.8 31.3 42.1 41.3 1 course 18 34.6 39.4 37.5 41.3 32.8 38.0 34.3 34.9 38.6 37.3 29.9 34.4 37.5 33.2 32.1 31.4 29.8 28.7 2 courses 12 34.4 34.3 37.5 30.8 34.8 27.9 39.4 39.0 23.6 28.5 29.2 38.5 37.5 34.3 33.5 25.3 30.5 27.6 3 courses 21 41.0 46.1 37.5 37.5 41.0 41.4 37.2 37.2 41.6 40.4 40.9 38.5 37.5 38.2 39.5 40.3 36.4 40.9 4 courses > 18 39.6 31.2 37.5 42.5 41.0 42.0 40.4 39.0 42.2 36.5 46.0 38.5 37.5 43.5 43.2 50.2 49.9 47.9 Chi- Square 2.21 10.51 0.00 6.59 8.75 7.53 2.57 3.76 12.34 6.00 13.72 6.31 0.00 5.96 5.32 14.09 12.99 15.33 p-value 0.70 0.03 1.00 0.16 0.07 0.11 0.63 0.44 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.18 1.00 0.20 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.00 Grouping Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18

Experience N Mean Rank

< 5 years 17 36.2 35.9 37.5 35.1 32.3 36.6 36.0 34.6 36.2 42.4 33.8 34.1 37.5 34.8 35.4 34.1 33.2 34.0 5 < 10 32 33.6 40.0 37.5 36.0 37.5 35.7 35.6 39.0 34.0 36.5 35.2 38.5 37.5 36.6 35.1 33.3 34.6 34.3 10 < 15 10 39.8 32.4 37.5 35.9 41.0 36.8 38.8 35.3 46.7 29.7 46.0 38.5 37.5 43.5 43.6 54.1 42.7 43.7 15 < 20 12 44.8 40.4 37.5 40.7 41.0 41.0 42.5 39.0 40.4 37.5 39.7 38.5 37.5 37.3 39.8 39.1 43.7 42.7 20 and > 3 50.0 25.0 37.5 59.0 41.0 50.0 42.5 39.0 40.5 46.5 46.0 38.5 37.5 43.5 46.5 40.3 51.5 49.5 Chi-Square 5.45 3.48 0.00 4.48 6.45 2.26 3.40 5.42 5.39 3.69 5.58 6.80 0.00 3.29 3.59 8.89 5.47 5.28 p-value 0.244 0.481 1.000 0.344 0.168 0.689 0.493 0.247 0.250 0.449 0.233 0.147 1.000 0.510 0.465 0.064 0.243 0.260

4.3.2.3.What is the effectiveness of SAFIU in coordinating activities with government and non-government institutions ?

This section presents the respondents perceptions of the effectiveness of SAFIU in coordinating activities related to combat of money laundering and terrorism finance crimes with governmental and non-governmental agencies such as banks and other financial institutions.

The data collected indicates that respondents perceive SAFIU to be very effective in coordinating activities related to the combating of money laundering and terrorism

finance crimes with governmental and non-governmental agencies, such as banks and other financial institutions, with an overall average of 4.41. The three most effective areas were related to items 3 (mean = 4.97), 9 (mean = 4.77) and 4 (mean = 4.69). The results suggest that SAFIU is particularly effective in exchanging information regarding money laundering and terrorism finance with other domestic government agencies, as well as cooperating with authorities in investigations of money laundering and terrorism financing activities. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrated that SAFIU is effective in freezing accounts on requests from AML units of SAMA, MOCI and MOJ associated with money laundering and terrorism financing activities. On the other hand, SAFIU was least effective in providing training programs to financial and non-financial institutions (mean = 4.12).

In summarising the quantitative results, SAFIU is perceived by respondents as being very effective in administering money laundering and terrorism financing crimes with other government and non-government agencies, such as finance and banking institutions, with an overall average of 4.45. The degree of effectiveness is classified as follows:

 The effectiveness of SAFIU in controlling money laundering and terrorism financing crimes with other governmental and non-governmental agencies such as banks and other financial institutions with an average of 4.48.

 The effectiveness of SAFIU in coordinating activities related to combat of money laundering and terrorism finance crimes with governmental and non- governmental agencies such as banks and other financial institutions with average of 4.41.

The respondents also provided a number of comments for this section. 9 respondents (6.66 per cent) indicated that some staff members of banks and commercial companies’ lack knowledge of the reporting indicators and requirements to combat money laundering and terrorism financing, while 6 respondents (4.44 per cent) commented that the PCCML is not providing sufficient support to SAFIU. In terms of performance, 3 respondents (2.22 per cent) commented that SAFIU does not issue periodic reports that include samples of case studies, performance and statistics of cases.

Lastly, one member (0.74 per cent) reported that the training SAFIU conducts for staff members in banks and non-financial institutions is irregular and not consistent.

4.3.2.4.What is the effectiveness of SAFIU in coordinating activities with government and non-government institutions (Kruskal-Wallis Test)?

In the Kruskal-Wallis test, the null hypothesis was rejected at 5 per cent (0.05) significance level for question 3, 4 and 8 (test by qualification) and question 4, 5 and 6 (test by training). Results indicated that respondents with lower qualifications and less number of training courses attended skewed towards neutral or disagreeing with the statement and, this may be due to the responsibility or authority assigned to each employee. Table 12 demonstrates the effectives of SAFIU in coordinating activities with government and non-government institutions.

Table 12: Kruskal-Wallis Test According to Age, Qualification, Training Attended and Experience

Grouping Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9

Age N Mean Rank

Less than 30 years old 28 40.2 34.7 35.9 38.1 38.0 31.9 32.7 34.6 37.8 From 30 to less than 40 years old 29 34.5 34.3 38.5 34.6 34.9 37.8 39.0 37.6 36.4 From 40 to less than 50 years old 15 35.3 46.2 38.5 40.9 40.6 46.8 41.0 41.8 38.5 From 50 years old and over 2 60.0 58.5 38.5 46.0 45.0 41.3 57.5 44.5 43.0 Chi-Square 4.68 7.43 3.33 2.31 2.01 5.91 4.63 1.56 0.64 p-value. 0.20 0.06 0.34 0.51 0.57 0.12 0.20 0.67 0.89 Grouping Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9

Qualification N Mean Rank

Secondary or less 6 35.3 27.7 26.2 27.6 32.3 26.7 19.7 22.5 30.8 Diploma 21 33.6 33.8 38.5 44.0 43.5 38.9 41.8 47.0 41.4 Bachelor 44 39.8 40.0 38.5 35.2 34.8 37.7 37.3 34.2 36.2 Master 3 35.3 46.2 38.5 46.0 45.0 46.8 46.0 49.7 43.0 Chi-Square 1.82 4.00 22.98 7.71 6.18 2.67 6.80 10.64 4.27 p-value 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.44 0.08 0.01 0.23 Grouping Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9

Training N Mean Rank

None 5 23.0 21.5 38.5 39.2 36.9 20.4 29.9 30.3 36.2 One training 18 39.4 33.8 34.4 31.4 32.9 34.1 34.2 32.8 36.7 Two training 12 44.6 40.0 38.5 28.3 28.7 26.7 35.7 32.7 30.3 Three training 21 35.3 39.1 38.5 40.3 40.1 44.3 39.2 38.5 37.9

Four training and more 18 37.4 42.1 38.5 46.0 45.0 45.0 42.2 46.2 43.0 Chi-Square 5.50 5.95 6.31 12.75 10.81 13.40 2.64 5.89 6.73 p-value 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.62 0.21 0.15 Grouping Variable Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9

Experience N Mean Rank

Less than 5 years 17 38.2 30.2 34.1 35.0 36.1 26.8 34.0 29.1 36.7 From 5 to less than 10 years 32 36.9 37.7 38.5 34.6 34.5 37.6 34.7 36.8 35.8 From 10 to less than 15 years 10 41.5 36.3 38.5 46.0 45.0 41.3 43.7 47.6 43.0 From 15 to less than 20 years 12 38.4 49.3 38.5 39.6 39.5 44.0 42.7 37.3 37.3 From 20 years and over 3 23.0 33.8 38.5 46.0 45.0 58.0 46.0 60.0 43.0 Chi-Square 2.49 7.68 6.80 5.50 4.85 10.27 3.75 9.54 2.84 p-value 0.647 0.104 0.147 0.239 0.304 0.036 0.441 0.049 0.586