It has been a few years since the news that the risk of Nepal being on the "grey list" in asset laundering has increased, is almost certain or has been avoided once. This time, it is almost certain that he will be on the 'Grey List'.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international organization that oversees money laundering, has put Nepal on the negative list (grey list) and announced the results at the end of February. This is not a situation imposed by others and created suddenly. Bad times are being brought about by the orthodox tendency of our state, adept at verbal and paper commitments but always indifferent to practical implementation. Because, the FATF has started putting Nepal on the "Grey List" since the expected improvements in the implementation of laws related to the prevention of money laundering, investigation and prosecution of financial crimes have not been achieved. Now Nepal's main objective should be to accept his announcement and make positive efforts to get out of the list.

The state has not been able to strictly monitor financial crimes like corruption and illegal acquisition, questionable investment, revenue evasion. Therefore, such activities have not come under the scope of action. Instead, within a short period of time, new individuals and groups are emerging unnaturally with financial access. The culprits involved in major scandals are often not prosecuted. Especially high-ranking, accessible and powerful people are difficult to come to action. Files associated with such individuals are deactivated on grounds of political protection. It doesn't last for years. Responsible agencies such as the Abuse of Authority Investigation Commission, the Revenue Investigation Department and the Money Laundering Investigation Department have not been able to show their effective presence or have not been allowed to do so. Overall, Nepal has not been able to keep the economy in a transparent and disciplined process. In that regard, international trends and commitments are also being neglected. Due to all these reasons, the image of Nepal is becoming negative.

The last time Nepal was under the close supervision of FATF since July 2080. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Asia Pacific Group (APG) mutual assessment report published in August 2080 had already pointed out that the risk of Nepal being on the "grey list" is high. In the report, the standards to be followed by countries including Nepal were divided into two parts, law enforcement and research side (effective rating) and law making and institutional side (technical compliance rating). At least 31 of the 40 criteria of 'Technical Compliance Rating' have been met. But most of the criteria under 'Effective Rating' have only received low evaluation. However, in the APG meeting held in Manila, the Philippines last week, the Nepali side submitted their claims for reforms. But because they are not satisfied with it, Nepal has been pushed towards the possibility of 'grey list'. Now, the results of Nepal and other countries in the same situation will be announced through the General Assembly of FATF to be held in Paris, France in the second week of February.

If Nepal is included in FATF's 'grey list', there will be a negative impact on many visible and invisible areas. Imports and exports may become more expensive, international trade may be affected, interest rates on foreign loans may become more expensive. Since the production itself will be affected, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country will be affected. Similarly, organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank may reduce loans and grants or increase interest rates. Donors may not grant/assist. Nepal may have to accept additional conditions. In such a situation, Nepal's relations in the international arena may become negative. Unnecessary selfishness and entanglement may have to be faced. If the situation of Nepal does not improve, it may have to face the situation of global embargo. Even in the country, the underground economy is becoming more and more influential. In addition to the direct, one may be trapped in a cycle of indirect effects. In terms of time reference, 'Grey List' takes us to challenging times. Whereas, at this time, Nepal needs more foreign investment. International trust is needed. That is possible only as long as the external image of the country is good, economic-political indicators are positive. If the period of 'grey list' is prolonged, our development efforts will be negatively affected.