Peer Review of the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information 2025 Update

New Caledonia

Overall findings

Effectiveness in practice

New Caledonia’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is partially compliant with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference to ensure the effectiveness of the AEOI Standard in practice. While New Caledonia is on track with respect to exchanging the information in an effective and timely manner (CR2), there are significant issues with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1)..

The methodology used for the peer reviews and that therefore underpins this report is outlined in Annex A.

Overall rating in relation to the effectiveness in practice: Partially Compliant

Conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice

General context

New Caledonia commenced exchanges under the AEOI Standard on a non-reciprocal basis in 2020 (i.e. it sends but does not receive information).

Table 1 sets out the number of Financial Institutions in New Caledonia that reported information on Financial Accounts in 2024 as defined in the AEOI Standard (essentially because they maintained Financial Accounts for Account Holders, or relating to Controlling Persons, resident in a Reportable Jurisdiction). It also sets out the number of Financial Accounts that they reported in 2024. In this regard, it should be noted that New Caledonia requires the reporting of Financial Accounts based on a prescribed list of exchange partners and some accounts may be required to be reported more than once (e.g. jointly held accounts or accounts with multiple related Controlling Persons), which is reflected in the figures below. These figures provide key contextual information to the development and implementation of New Caledonia’s administrative compliance strategy, which is analysed in the subsequent sections of this report.

Table.1. Number of Financial Institutions reporting and Financial Accounts reported

	Number
Number of Financial Institutions reporting Financial Accounts in 2024	6
Number of Financial Accounts reported in 2024	2 625

Table 2 sets out the number of exchange partners to which information was sent by New Caledonia in the past few years (including where the necessary frameworks were in place but no relevant Reportable Accounts were identified). These figures provide key contextual information in relation to New Caledonia’s exchanges in practice, which is also analysed in subsequent sections of this report.

Table.2. Number of exchange partners to which information was sent

	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Number of exchange partners to which information was sent	5	16	22	34	40

In order to provide for the effective implementation of the AEOI Standard, in New Caledonia:

• The Direction des Services fiscaux (DSF, the tax authority) of New Caledonia is the authority in New Caledonia that is responsible for ensuring compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions. In doing so, it works closely with various French institutions.

• the Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances français (French Ministry of Economy and Finance) supports the DSF on AEOI;

• the Direction Générale des Finances Publiques (DGFiP) (the tax authority in France) has the responsibility of receiving the information from New Caledonia’s Reporting Financial Institutions and exchanging it with New Caledonia’s exchange partners and supports the DSF in ensuring the effective implementation of the due diligence and reporting obligations by Reporting Financial Institutions, including with respect to engaging with partners internationally;

• the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) and the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) (the authorities in France responsible for AML supervision in relation to banking and insurance, and investment management respectively) are the principal authorities in France responsible to ensure the effective implementation of the due diligence and reporting obligations by Reporting Financial Institutions and which support the DSF;

• technical solutions necessary to receive and validate the information reported by Reporting Financial Institutions were put in place through an online governmental platform which allows submission of XML files and which carries out validations on the exploitability of the file and to ensure that it meets the requirements of the CRS XML Schema; and

• the Common Transmission System (CTS) is used for the exchange of the information, along with the associated file preparation and encryption requirements.

It should be noted that the review of New Caledonia’s legal frameworks implementing the AEOI Standard concluded with the determination that New Caledonia’s domestic legal framework is In Place but needs improvement and its international legal framework is In Place. This has been taken into account when reviewing the effectiveness of New Caledonia’s implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice.

Detailed findings

The following table contains the detailed findings for New Caledonia, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and then per sub-requirement (SR) as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex B).

CR1 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions correctly implement the due diligence and reporting procedures, which includes a requirement for jurisdictions to have in place an administrative framework to ensure the effective implementation of the CRS.

Rating: Partially Compliant

New Caledonia’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is partially compliant with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions are correctly conducting the due diligence and reporting procedures. More specifically, while New Caledonia is meeting expectations with respect to its international collaboration to ensure effectiveness (SR 1.6), there are significant issues with respect to ensuring effectiveness in a domestic context, such as through having an effective administrative compliance framework and related procedures (SR 1.5). New Caledonia should continue its implementation process to ensure its effectiveness, including by addressing the recommendations made.

SR 1.5 Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions identify the Financial Accounts they maintain, identify the Reportable Accounts among those Financial Accounts, as well as their Account Holders, and where relevant Controlling Persons, by correctly conducting the due diligence procedures and collect and report the required information with respect to each Reportable Account. This includes having in place:

• an effective administrative compliance framework to ensure the effective implementation of, and compliance with, the CRS. This framework should:

  i. be based on a strategy that facilitates compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions and which is informed by a risk assessment in respect of the effective implementation of the CRS that takes into account relevant information sources (including third party sources);

  ii. include procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions correctly apply the definitions of Reporting Financial Institutions and Non-Reporting Financial Institutions;

  iii. include procedures to periodically verify Reporting Financial Institutions’ compliance,9 conducted by authorities that have adequate powers with respect to the reviewed Reporting Financial Institutions, with procedures to access the records they maintain; and

• effective procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries do not circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures;

• effective enforcement mechanisms to address non-compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions;

• strong measures to ensure that valid self-certifications are always obtained for New Accounts;

• effective procedures to ensure that each, or each type of, jurisdiction-specific Non-Reporting Financial Institution and Excluded Account continue to present a low risk of being used to evade tax; and

• effective procedures to follow up with a Reporting Financial Institution when undocumented accounts are reported in order to establish the reasons why such information is being reported.

Findings:

In order to ensure that all Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, New Caledonia has implemented some of the requirements in accordance with expectations, although significant issues were identified. A review of New Caledonia’s framework identified the following findings:

• New Caledonia has recently developed a strategy to ensure compliance with the AEOI Standard. The development is in its initial stages and is based on a risk assessment that takes into account a range of relevant sources. The DGFiP has conducted some activities by analysing the data reported by Reporting Financial Institutions as well as the feedback received from Exchange Partners. The ACPR and the AMF have also undertaken some general risk assessments in relation to AEOI, specifically targeted at the New Caledonia Reporting Financial Institutions.

• With respect to facilitating reporting in particular, the DGFiP and the DSF have concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) whereby the DGFiP has the responsibility to collect information from the Financial Institutions in New Caledonia and transmit it to New Caledonia’s exchange partners. Furthermore, the DSF has organised several seminars to sensitise the Financial Institutions about their due diligence and reporting obligations. Financial Institutions also have access to a dedicated website where they can find guidance issued by the DGFiP. The DGFiP also provides legal expertise and technical support to the DSF so that the Financial Institutions in New Caledonia can meet their reporting obligations under the AEOI Standard.

• New Caledonia has taken some action to understand its population of Financial Institutions, utilising various relevant information sources, such as the list of banks from the ‘Institut d’emission d’outre-mer’ (IEOM)’ which acts as the Central bank for jurisdictions whose currency is the Pacific Franc, as well as lists of AML supervised Financial Institutions. New Caledonia is in the process of developing a more systematic plan to identify Financial Institutions, including non-regulated Entities that are Financial Institutions for the purposes of the AEOI Standard, on an ongoing basis.

• The DSF has general powers through its domestic tax laws to carry out verification activities and to apply sanctions in relation to non-compliance. The ACPR and the AMF are responsible for supervising Financial Institutions in New Caledonia in respect of the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) obligations and the DSF has worked with them and the DGFiP to elaborate a legal framework to enable the ACPR and the AMF to also carry out verification activities in relation to New Caledonian Financial Institutions for AEOI purposes. This new legal framework for compliance came into force on 1^st September 2025.

• The DSF and the DGFiP have assigned the equivalent of one full time staff to monitor and ensure compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions in New Caledonia, who has access to IT systems and tools to conduct risk assessments. They have designed the strategy to carry out appropriate compliance activities, which will be carried out by the ACPR and the AMF in the near future.

• The DGFiP has conducted some desk-based analysis of the information reported, however, there has not yet been compliance activities conducted including in depth reviews and the inspection of records held by Reporting Financial Institutions. New Caledonia has also defined procedures to ensure self-certifications are obtained as required although no checks have yet been carried out in practice. There are plans to carry them out in the near future. There are no defined procedures to follow up on undocumented accounts when they are reported, although there are plans to develop such procedures in the near future.

• New Caledonia has developed procedures to enforce the requirements, including the application of penalties and sanctions for non-compliance when it is identified. However, no sanctions have yet been applied.

• It appears that New Caledonia is ready to take effective action to address circumvention of the requirements if such circumvention is detected. It is noted however that such cases have not yet been identified. It also appears that New Caledonia has well developed procedures to keep its jurisdiction-specific lists of Excluded Accounts under review to ensure they continue to pose a low risk of being used for tax evasion purposes. New Caledonia does not have a jurisdiction-specific list of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions.

Table 3 provides a summary of the specific activities undertaken, or that are planned to be undertaken, in relation to each of the key parts of the framework described above.

Table.3. Activities undertaken

Activity type	Activities undertaken
Communication and outreach	New Caledonia has carried out some communication and outreach activities, such as the publication of guidance and seminars with the financial sector.
Verifying that Financial Institutions are reporting as required	New Caledonia has carried out some verification activities to ensure that Financial Institutions are reporting as required such as matching regulators lists with the list of Financial Institutions which have reported information and identified no Financial Institutions incorrectly not reporting.
Verifying whether the information reported is complete and accurate	While the DGFiP has conducted some desk-based analysis of the data reported, New Caledonia has not yet conducted desk-based checks to verify whether the information being reported is complete and accurate. Furthermore, New Caledonia has not yet conducted in-depth audits/onsite visits.
Enforcement	Following the activities mentioned above, New Caledonia has not yet imposed penalties and sanctions.

With respect to the Financial Account information collected and exchanged by New Caledonia, the presence of the key data point of birth appeared to be in line with most other jurisdictions. However, the data exchanged by New Caledonia was found to include a significantly lower proportion of Tax Identification Numbers with respect to the individuals associated with the accounts when compared to most other jurisdictions. This is a key data point for exchange partners to effectively utilise the information. Furthermore, information provided by New Caledonia showed a higher number of undocumented accounts reported by its Reporting Financial Institutions, when compared to other jurisdictions, which should only occur when it is not possible for the Reporting Financial Institutions to identify whether the accounts are held by Reportable Persons. Follow-up discussions confirmed that New Caledonia is aware of these issues and is taking steps to address them.

Feedback from New Caledonia’s exchange partners indicated that, compared to what they generally experience when seeking to match information received from their exchange partners with their taxpayer database, they achieved a relatively lower level of success when seeking to match information received from New Caledonia. Follow-up discussions confirmed that New Caledonia is aware of these issues is seeking to improve the situation.

Based on these findings it was concluded that New Caledonia is partially meeting expectations in ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures,. More specifically, significant issues have been identified, including with respect to implementing plans to verify compliance in a way that is coordinated amongst the various institutions involved. New Caledonia should therefore continue its implementation process accordingly, including by addressing the recommendations made.

Recommendations:

New Caledonia should further develop and implement its compliance strategy to underpin its compliance activities, informed by a risk assessment that takes into account a range of relevant information sources.

New Caledonia should further develop its approach to identify Reporting Financial Institutions on an ongoing basis, including by reviewing information sources to identify non-regulated Entities that are Financial Institutions for the purposes of the AEOI Standard

New Caledonia should carry out verification and enforcement activities in relation to AEOI compliance, including ensuring that the Financial Institutions always obtain valid self-certifications when required.

New Caledonia should ensure that it has a formalised process to follow up on Reporting Financial Institutions reporting undocumented accounts, including to understand the reasons for them, to ensure that they are correctly applying the definition in all cases, and to ensure that they are subject to ongoing due diligence procedures.

SR 1.6 Jurisdictions should collaborate on compliance and enforcement. This requires jurisdictions to:

• use all appropriate measures available under the jurisdiction’s domestic law to address errors or non-compliance notified to the jurisdiction by an exchange partner; and

• have in place effective procedures to notify an exchange partner of errors that may have led to incomplete or incorrect information reporting or non-compliance with the due diligence or reporting procedures by a Reporting Financial Institution in the jurisdiction of the exchange partner.

It should be noted that, as New Caledonia exchanges information on a non-reciprocal basis and does not therefore receive information, it is not required to have in place procedures to notify its exchange partners. SR 1.6 b) has therefore not been assessed in this case.

Findings:

In order to collaborate on compliance and enforcement, New Caledonia implemented all of the requirements in relation to issues notified to them (i.e. under Section 4 of the MCAA or equivalent) in accordance with expectations. While such notifications have not yet been received, it has developed the necessary systems and procedures to be ready to process them as required.

Based on these findings it was concluded that New Caledonia is fully meeting expectations in relation to collaborating with its exchange partners to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures. New Caledonia is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

CR2 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should exchange the information effectively in practice, in a timely manner, including by sorting, preparing, validating and transmitting it in accordance with the AEOI Standard

Rating: On Track

New Caledonia’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is on track with respect to exchanging the information effectively in practice, including in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information (SR 2.4), correctly transmitting the information in a timely manner (SRs 2.5 – 2.8) and providing corrections, amendments or additions to the information (SR 2.9). New Caledonia is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.

SR 2.4 Jurisdictions should sort, prepare and validate the information in accordance with the CRS XML Schema and the associated requirements in the CRS XML Schema User Guide and the File Error and Correction-related validations in the Status Message User Guide (i.e. the 50000 and 80000 range).

Findings:

Feedback from New Caledonia’s exchange partners did not raise any specific concerns with respect to their ability to process the information received from New Caledonia and therefore with respect to New Caledonia’s implementation of these requirements. More generally, five (or 8%) of New Caledonia’s exchange partners reported rejecting more than 25% of the files received, due to the technical requirements not being met. This is a relatively high amount when compared to other jurisdictions and it has increased over time. It was noted that New Caledonia has still not addressed all of the issues.

Figure 2. Technical issues raised by New Caledonia’s exchange partners

Based on these findings it was concluded that, overall, New Caledonia is partially meeting expectations in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information. However, significant issues have been identified including with respect to ensuring that files, including correction files are sent in line with the requirements of the CRS XML Schema. New Caledonia should therefore continue its implementation process accordingly, including in relation by addressing the recommendation made.

Recommendations:

New Caledonia should review its systems and procedures for sorting, preparing and validating the information to send to its exchange partners, to ensure they meet the requirements of the AEOI Standard.

SR 2.5 Jurisdictions should agree and use, with each exchange partner, transmission methods that meet appropriate minimum standards to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the data throughout the transmission, including its encryption to a minimum secure standard.

Findings:

In order to put in place an agreed transmission method that meets appropriate minimum standards in confidentiality, integrity of the data and encryption for use with each of its exchange partners, New Caledonia linked to the CTS.

Based on these findings it was concluded that New Caledonia is fully meeting expectations in relation to agreeing and using appropriate transmission methods with each of its partners. New Caledonia is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

SR 2.6 Jurisdictions should carry out all exchanges annually within nine months of the end of the calendar year to which the information relates.

Findings:

Feedback from New Caledonia’s exchange partners did not raise any concerns with respect to timeliness of the exchanges by New Caledonia and therefore with respect to New Caledonia’s implementation of this requirement.

Based on these findings it was concluded that New Caledonia is fully meeting expectations in relation to exchanging the information in a timely manner. New Caledonia is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

SR 2.7 Jurisdictions should send the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards.

Findings:

Feedback from New Caledonia’s exchange partners did not raise any concerns with respect to New Caledonia’s use of the agreed transmission methods and therefore with New Caledonia’s implementation of this requirement.

Based on these findings it was concluded that New Caledonia is fully meeting expectations in relation to sending the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards. New Caledonia is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

SR 2.8 Jurisdictions should have the systems in place to receive information and, once it has been received, should send a status message to the sending jurisdictions in accordance with the CRS Status Message XML Schema and the related User Guide.

Findings:

It should be noted that, as New Caledonia exchanges information on a non-reciprocal basis and does not receive information, it is not required to have in place systems to receive the information and provide status messages. SR 2.8 has therefore not been assessed in this case.

Recommendations:

Not applicable.

SR 2.9 Jurisdictions should respond to a notification from an exchange partner as referred to in Section 4 of the Model CAA (which may include Status Messages) in accordance with the timelines set out in the Commentary to Section 4 of the Model CAA. In all other cases, jurisdictions should send corrected, amended or additional information received from a Reporting Financial Institution as soon as possible after it has been received.

Findings:

New Caledonia appears ready to respond to notifications and to provide corrected, amended or additional information in a timely manner and no such concerns were raised by New Caledonia’s exchange partners and therefore with respect to New Caledonia’s implementation of these requirements.

Based on these findings it was concluded that New Caledonia is fully meeting expectations in relation to responding to notifications from exchange partners and the sending of corrected, amended or additional information. New Caledonia is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

Comments by the assessed jurisdiction

No comments made.