Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2026 Update (June)

Curaçao

(Adopted by the Global Forum in June 2026)

Curaçao joined the Global Forum in 2013. Curaçao underwent its Second Round of EOIR Peer Review in 2017 (Curaçao’s 2017 Report),1 which assessed its legal and regulatory framework in force as at 2016 and its practical implementation, including in respect of EOI requests received and sent during the review period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2016. Curaçao received an overall rating of Partially Compliant. Subsequently, Curaçao underwent a Supplementary EOIR Peer Review in 2019 (Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report),2 which assessed its legal and regulatory framework in force as at 6 August 2019 and its practical implementation, including in respect of EOI requests received and sent, during the review period from 1 July 2016 to 30 September 2018. Curaçao received an overall rating of Largely Compliant and the individual Elements were rated as follows:

 

	A.1	A.2	A.3	B.1	B.2	C.1	C.2	C.3	C.4	C.5	Overall
Determinations	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	i.p.	n.a.	LC
Ratings	LC	LC	C	LC	C	LC	C	C	C	LC

Status of implementation of recommendations issued in the peer review report

Curaçao received 12 in-box recommendations in relation to Elements A.1, A.2, B.1, C.1 and C.5.

This monitoring report assesses the actions taken by Curaçao to address the recommendations issued in its EOIR Peer Review Report and the peer input received for the monitoring period 2023-2024.

The report concludes that six recommendations are “considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation”, five are “in the process of being addressed” and one “has not been addressed”. However, the report also notes that the measures taken to address one recommendation on Element A.1 have some gaps and the implementation of the new measures needs to be demonstrated. Accordingly, the report adds two new recommendations and advises on actions required.

Element A.1: Availability of ownership information

1. Definition of beneficial ownership as applicable to partnerships

 

Recommendation (A.1, framework)	Curaçao should ensure that accurate beneficial ownership information of all relevant partnerships in Curaçao is available at all times.
Underlying factor	The new definition of ultimate beneficial owner for a partnership requires identification of only those natural persons with more than 25% stake as beneficial owners. For partnerships, being legal arrangements, all relevant natural persons with a stake in the partnership should be identified. (see paragraphs 77 et seq. of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Amendments to the definition of beneficial owners in the National Ordinance on General National Taxes (Tax Ordinance) entered into force on 16 May 2024. The amended provisions now require the identification of every natural person having a stake in the partnership as its beneficial owner, no matter the percentage of that stake. Further, the National Ordinance on Identification in the Provision of Services (AML Ordinance) was also amended in May 2024, to update the definition of ultimate beneficial ownership for different legal entities and arrangements and bring it more in line with the definition available in the Tax Ordinance. In addition, a central beneficial ownership register has been operationalised in 2024 with a National Decree in this regard issued on 7 June 2024. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry is responsible for its maintenance. The Chamber is authorised to examine the submissions made to the register and call for correction of such information by the director of the entity concerned or the notary. The central beneficial ownership register is a closed register to which only the Public Prosecutor’s office, the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten, the Financial Intelligence Unit Curaçao, the departments of analysis and supervision, the Gaming Control Board Foundation and the Inspectorate of Taxes have access (Article 45(16) of the Tax Ordinance). All legal entities and arrangements were granted time until 1 July 2025 to comply and provide their beneficial ownership information to the central beneficial ownership register.
Conclusion	Curaçao appears to have taken appropriate actions to address the legal issue regarding the definition of beneficial ownership in the context of the Tax Ordinance. The amendment to the Tax Ordinance has removed the earlier threshold of 25% of voting rights and share of profits applicable for the identification of beneficial owners of partnerships. Hence, under the Tax Ordinance, the definition of beneficial owners of partnerships aligns with the form and structure of partnerships. It is noted that in respect of the newly established Central Beneficial Ownership Register, the associated Guidance issued in July 2024 indicated a 25% threshold for identification of beneficial owners of partnerships until October 2025 when it was harmonised with the Tax Ordinance. While corrected now, the different interpretation in the Guidance available on the website of the register for the period between June 2024 and October 2025 could have affected the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information on partnerships submitted to the register. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry, being the supervisory authority empowered to verify the submissions made in the register and call for suitable corrections, may need to take suitable actions in this regard. In any case, the amended AML Ordinance continues to apply a threshold approach in respect of identifying beneficial owners of partnerships, leading to potentially inconsistent identification of beneficial owners for partnerships across the two laws and by stakeholders. The supervisory activities of the AML supervisors are key to ensuring the availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information and AML authorities and AML-obliged persons would rely on the definition of beneficial ownership provided in the AML Ordinance. Differences in definitions of beneficial ownership under the relevant laws increase the risk that stakeholders apply different definitions and identify beneficial owners of partnerships inconsistently. Curaçao has informed that it has noted this issue and has initiated the process of amending the AML Ordinance. Curaçao is recommended to ensure that the definition of beneficial owners across all the relevant laws is harmonised and is in line with the standard. Further, the changes made to the Tax Ordinance are recent and need to be implemented and supervised, such that beneficial ownership information on partnerships be available in line with the standard. In addition, given the recent steps to put in place a central beneficial ownership register, which will be a key source of beneficial ownership information, it is important to ensure that it is appropriately implemented. Hence, Curaçao is recommended to implement and supervise the recent changes to its legal framework, including the operationalisation of its central beneficial ownership register to ensure the availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information in line with the standard.
Status determined	Existing recommendation: Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation Two new recommendations issued.
Actions required	Existing recommendation: No immediate action required New recommendations: In its next self-assessment in 2028, Curaçao should – Report the steps taken to align the definitions of beneficial ownership of partnerships across the Tax Ordinance and the AML Ordinance to allow consistent identification of beneficial owners. Report on the steps taken to implement and supervise the changes made to the definition of beneficial owners under the Tax Ordinance and the implementation of the central beneficial ownership register to ensure the availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information in line with the standard.

2. Monitoring the understanding of new definition of beneficial ownership

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	Curaçao should monitor that all legal persons and arrangements understand and apply the enhanced definition of “ultimate beneficial owner” capturing effective control (including through other means) for identifying and correctly reporting beneficial owners in all cases, and issue suitable guidance as necessary.
Underlying factor	Article 45 of the National Ordinance on General National Taxes has been amended recently and the definition of “ultimate beneficial owner” has been elaborated to bring it in line with the standard. Considering the relatively recent change, it could not be assessed in practice if all stakeholders adequately understand the new definition while identifying beneficial owners. (see paragraphs 44 to 51 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The Tax Ordinance was further amended in 2024 to address the legal gap in the definition of beneficial owners as applicable to partnerships (see discussion under Recommendation 1). In addition, the central beneficial ownership register has also been operationalised under the supervision of Curaçao’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry since June 2024. The Chamber has provided guidance on identification of beneficial owners. Furthermore, in the context of implementation of the Common Reporting Standard that relies on the same definition of beneficial ownership as available in the Tax Ordinance, awareness raising efforts have been made in respect of the concept of beneficial ownership among reporting financial institutions. In terms of monitoring the correct application of the definition of beneficial ownership, the definition of beneficial ownership in the AML Ordinance was more closely aligned with the definition of beneficial ownership in the Tax Ordinance in May 2024. Curaçao has indicated that all financial institutions that provide services subject to the AML Ordinance must comply with the enhanced ultimate beneficial owner definition. The scope of the AML legislation and the Provisions and Guidelines issued by the Central Bank take into account the cascading effect when identifying the ultimate beneficial owners and beneficiaries of client entities. The Central Bank carried out desk-based oversight by way of annual AML Questionnaires issued to the supervised entities in respect of their client base. Further, the Central Bank has carried out on-site examinations on financial institutions. During on-site examinations conducted at financial institutions, the Central Bank verifies whether the procedure to identify the ultimate beneficiary is conducted properly. The Central Bank also verifies their proper adherence to the AML legislation and Provisions and Guidelines. Results of the Central Bank’s on-site examinations indicate that stakeholders adequately understand the definition. In respect of trust and company service providers, Curaçao has emphasised that about 60% of the service providers are individuals with dispensation, i.e. they cannot have more than 10 clients and have an annual income of a maximum of US Dollars 50 000. The Central Bank has examined the sector following the National Risk Assessment and has conducted desk-based monitoring.
Conclusion	Curaçao has made progress to address the recommendation. The recent amendments to the AML Ordinance align the definition of beneficial ownership between the AML Ordinance and the Tax Ordinance more closely, although some differences persist relating to partnerships, which could continue to pose challenges in the understanding of beneficial ownership among the stakeholders (see recommendation 1, above). The operationalisation of the central beneficial ownership register is a notable step, although Curaçao needs to demonstrate its effective implementation. The guidance associated with the central beneficial ownership register is basic and does not reflect the recent amended definition under the Tax Ordinance. It should be clarified. The Central Bank’s supervision and oversight have been focused on AML-obliged financial institutions. The oversight over trust and company service providers does not include checking of beneficial ownership information held by legal entities and arrangements. Further monitoring actions are required to ensure that legal entities and arrangements suitably apply the definition of beneficial ownership under the Tax Ordinance. Curaçao should report further progress in its next self-assessment.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, Curaçao should – Report awareness raising measures (including specific guidance) taken to ensure that legal entities and arrangements understand and apply the definition of beneficial ownership in line with the standard while maintaining such information with themselves or while submitting it to the new central beneficial ownership register. Report on the compliance from the legal entities and arrangements in submitting beneficial ownership information in their tax returns and/or to the central beneficial ownership information. Report on the supervisory action with relevant statistics (as applicable) to ensure the availability of adequate, accurate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information in line with the standard under the Tax Ordinance, the AML Ordinance and in respect of the central beneficial ownership register.

3. Ensuring supervisory coordination between the Central Bank and the Tax Administration in respect of availability of ownership information

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	Curaçao must ensure that the recently introduced mechanism for cooperation between the Central Bank and the Inspectorate of Taxes results in effective supervision by the tax authorities of international entities’ obligations to maintain identity and ownership information (including beneficial ownership) for the specified retention period as required under the tax law.
Underlying factor	While Curaçao has put in place a mechanism for cooperation between the Central Bank and the Inspectorate of Taxes specifically in relation to the monitoring and supervision of international (offshore) entities’ obligations to maintain ownership and identity information under the tax law, the arrangement is fairly recent and has not been tested adequately in practice. (see paragraphs 56 to 65 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The Central Bank and Inspectorate of Taxes have had in place a cooperation manual since the 2019 Report. The two agencies meet biannually, and the information obtained as an outcome of the Central Bank’s supervisory activities (see Recommendation 2 above) is being shared with the Inspectorate regularly. Further, during 2024, in respect of the ongoing work on the implementation of the Common Reporting Standard, since August 2024, the Central Bank and the Inspectorate have held monthly and at times bi-monthly meetings to have better coordination in relation to supervision for the Common Reporting Standard. In addition, the AML Ordinance (which is directly implemented by the Central Bank in its supervision) has been more closely aligned with the Tax Ordinance in relation to the definition of beneficial ownership (except for the difference in respect of partnerships) since 2024 (see recommendation 1 above). With its own supervisory and oversight powers and the ability to sanction non-compliance under the AML Ordinance, the Central Bank is better placed to ensure the application of the beneficial ownership definition in line with the standard by the financial institutions and trust and company service providers. A Policy Rule Document on integrity testing of the persons that hold responsible positions within the Central Bank’s supervised entities has been published in June 2023 by the Central Bank. Based on this Policy Rule Document, the Central Bank can obtain information on availability of ownership information (including beneficial ownership) for the specified retention period of 10 years as required under the Tax Ordinance from specified senior management of all institutions under its supervision or those that are applying for licence from the Central Bank. The Central Bank’s findings based on this Policy Rule Document are communicated to the Inspectorate as part of its cooperation with the Inspectorate.
Conclusion	Curaçao has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment. A formal policy of cooperation between the Central Bank and the Inspectorate of Taxes is in place since the 2019 Report. There are indications of closer interactions between the two authorities and more frequent meetings, although details on outcomes of these meetings in respect of the implementation of the Tax Ordinance provisions are not available. The closer alignment of the AML Ordinance with the Tax Ordinance on the definition of beneficial ownership (see recommendation 1, above) should allow the Central Bank to rely on its own enforcement powers for sanctioning non-compliance noted in respect of AML-obliged persons. However, the supervision and enforcement actions in respect of trust and company service providers have been limited. Further, Curaçao is yet to provide sufficient evidence that non-compliance identified by the Central Bank in respect of availability of information on legal entities and arrangements which are clients of the trust and company service providers has been communicated to the Inspectorate, and that the latter has taken suitable actions.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self- assessment in 2028, Curaçao should – Submit details on actual enforcement actions, as noted in the analysis above Provide more details to demonstrate the effectiveness of the inter-agency cooperation for supervising requirements on international (offshore) entities under the Tax Ordinance.

4. Effective exercise of enforcement powers to check non-compliance

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)	Curaçao should ensure that authorities exercise the enforcement powers by way of imposing sanctions on non-compliant entities in a timely and effective manner in order to ensure the availability of ownership information at all times.
Underlying factor	While there is some oversight, there is no rigorous system in practice of monitoring entities’ obligations in all cases and there is generally minimum enforcement and/or penalties applied to ensure the availability of ownership information. No sanctions were reported in relation to non-compliance noted during the enhanced monitoring programme. (see paragraphs 66 to 68 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Curaçao broadened the supervisory enforcement powers. The National Decree on Administrative Fines (National Decree) was revised in January 2023 to ensure that it is in line with the National Ordinance for Updating and Harmonization of the Supervision Ordinances Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (Supervision Ordinance), the National Ordinance Reporting Unusual Transactions and the AML Ordinance. Both the National Ordinance Reporting Unusual Transactions and the AML Ordinance were amended in May 2024 to give the Central Bank additional tools for more robust and rigorous fines on non-compliant institutions. The Central Bank published a related enforcement manual. Further, the Financial Intelligence Unit (one of three AML-supervisors for certain AML-obliged persons like real estate companies, law firms, etc.) started its second “non-registration project” to get designated entities and professions to register with the Financial Intelligence Unit. Non-compliant AML-obliged persons are subject to the administrative fines under the National Decree. The Financial Intelligence Unit conducted three audits in 2024 on accountants and their obligations to maintain beneficial ownership information on their clients. In 2025, the Financial Intelligence Unit’s audit plan covers lawyers, notaries and accountants. Overall, so far, the audited entities generally complied with client identification requirements as mandated by law. However, in some cases, certain formal requirements outlined in the Financial Intelligence Unit’s Provisions and Guidelines were not fully met. No major violations were identified, and therefore, no sanctions were imposed. Finally, the National Decree implementing the central ultimate beneficial ownership register is in effect since June 2024. This legislation will entail effective access for law enforcement supervisors to beneficial ownership information and will allow the application of the sanctions regime for any non-compliance.
Conclusion	Curaçao has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment. Curaçao’s actions indicate a more coordinated and strengthened supervisory and enforcement system for the relevant AML supervisors. Some details of oversight activities have been reported in respect of AML-obliged persons but there is insufficient evidence that the obligations over legal entities and arrangements under the Tax Ordinance to maintain beneficial ownership information have been sufficiently supervised. Similarly, there is still limited evidence that penal provisions have been adequately implemented where non-compliance with the obligations to maintain legal and beneficial ownership information is noted. The recent operationalisation of the central beneficial ownership register is a welcome step, although its effective implementation and supervision over the submitted information are yet to be demonstrated.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self- assessment in 2028, Curaçao should – Provide information (including statistical information, as applicable) on the monitoring actions of the authorities over the obligations of entities to maintain legal and beneficial ownership information, with focus on entities represented through trust and company service providers. Provide information on the application of penal provisions under the Tax Ordinance or the AML Ordinance where non-compliance has occurred, together with outcomes and follow-up actions to such penalties. Provide, as part of the actions required under recommendations 1 and 2, details of enforcement and supervision carried out in respect of the central beneficial ownership register.

Element A.2: Availability of accounting information

5. Ensuring supervisory coordination between the Central Bank and the Tax Administration in respect of availability of accounting information

 

Recommendation (A.2, practice)	Curaçao must ensure that the mechanism for cooperation between the Central Bank and the Inspectorate of Taxes put in place results in effective supervision by the tax authorities of international entities’ obligations to maintain accounting information, including underlying documents, for the specified retention period as required under the tax law, in accordance with the EOIR standard.
Underlying factor	While Curaçao has put in place a mechanism for cooperation between the Central Bank and the Inspectorate of Taxes specifically in relation to the monitoring and supervision of international (offshore) entities’ obligations to maintain accounting information, the arrangement is fairly recent and has not been tested adequately in practice. (see paragraphs 95 to 100 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	The Central Bank audits the trust and company service providers’ obligations to ensure availability and retention of annual accounts of their clients. Audits are conducted on a sample test check basis. A dedicated Trust Questionnaire is used to confirm compliance with legal requirements and accounting information, which every trust and company service provider must submit annually to the Central Bank. The trust and company service providers also have an obligation to submit an annual declaration under Article 16 of the National Ordinance on Supervision of Trust Service Providers that for each of their international client companies they are maintaining data on the sources of capital introduced at the time of incorporation and afterwards, as well as on the person(s) who can directly or indirectly make claims to the distribution, capital and the surplus after distribution. The outcomes of Central Bank audits and on-site inspections will be shared with the Tax Authorities during their biannual meetings.
Conclusion	Curaçao has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment. A formal policy of cooperation between the Central Bank and the Inspectorate of Taxes is in place since 2019 and there are indications of closer interactions between the two authorities by way of bilateral meetings. However, the supervision and enforcement efforts in r espect of trust and company service providers have been limited. Further, Curaçao is yet to provide sufficient evidence that non-compliance identified by the Central Bank in respect of legal entities and arrangements (clients of the trust and company service providers) has been communicated to the Inspectorate that has taken suitable actions.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, Curaçao should – Provide sufficient details on the audit and on-site inspections carried out by the Central Bank, as noted in the analysis above, and the outcome of such efforts. Provide further details on the coordination mechanism between the Central Bank and the Tax Authorities, i.e. the number of such actions and their outcomes.

6. Effective exercise of enforcement powers to check non-compliance

 

Recommendation (A.2, practice)	Curaçao should ensure that authorities with oversight responsibilities exercise the enforcement powers by way of imposing the penal sanctions on non-compliant entities in a timely and effective manner in order to ensure the availability of accounting information at all times.
Underlying factor	Even when non-compliance with the availability of accounting information was noted in some cases during the review period and also during the enhanced monitoring exercise carried out by the tax audit department, Curaçao did not impose any sanctions for non-compliance with requirements of maintaining accounting information. (see paragraphs 101 and 102 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	All legal entities and legal arrangements established in Curacao are subject to corporate income tax. Hence, all of them must file their tax returns and pay the reported amount due within the statutory date. Some accounting information is a mandatory attachment to the final declaration. Failure to comply with the filing and payment obligations (this is including providing the accounting information) automatically leads to an assessment with a penalty. Curaçao’s penalty policy takes repeated failures to comply with the obligations into account for the determination of the amount of the penalty. Further, Curaçao has reported similar actions as for Recommendation 4 above. Two national laws on administrative fines for AML violations entered into force in June 2021 and January 2023 for sanctioning non-reporting of unusual transactions and for failure to identify customers. The Central Bank has published an enforcement manual for its supervisory officers, such that all legal requirements are duly followed to achieve a more effective and efficient enforcement process. Further, Curaçao is seeking a revised and updated legislation to align and enhance the Central Bank’s enforcement powers across multiple laws. This revised National Decree is currently in the legislative process. Administrative sanctions, including instruction letters, were imposed for late- and non-reporting of annual accounts. Penalties were imposed for late reporting of annual accounts.
Conclusion	Accounting obligations on all relevant entities and arrangements in Curaçao arise from company law and the Tax Ordinance. Supervision of the accounting requirements under the Tax Ordinance is key for ensuring availability of accounting information, especially for entities with limited physical presence and activities in Curaçao which do not sufficiently comply with their tax return filing obligations. Curaçao’s submissions do not clearly address the recommendation as the actions taken are by the Central Bank and have been limited to the accounting information held by financial institutions, while the recommendation covers all relevant entities and arrangements. Onsite supervision has been limited to local and international banks while the trust and company service providers have been subject only to desk-based supervision. There is no information whether through this oversight and supervision targeted checks have been undertaken in respect of availability of accounting information by entities and arrangements. Supervisory efforts of the tax authorities and details of any collaborative measures undertaken have not been provided. Hence, no progress has been reported on addressing the recommendation. Curaçao is urged to address the recommendation and report substantive progress in the next self-assessment.
Status determined	Has not been addressed
Actions required	Curaçao should submit a schedule for completion of steps to address the recommendation and an update on its progress made to address the recommendation by 31 March 2027. In particular, Curaçao should – Provide statistical information on the supervisory and enforcement measures adopted by the authorities to rigorously monitor the obligations to maintain accounting information by all entities and arrangements. Provide indicative information on the application of available penal provisions under the Tax Ordinance where non-compliance has occurred, together with outcomes and follow-up actions to such penalties.

Element B.1: Access Powers of the Competent Authority: Largely Compliant

7. Streamlining enforcement procedures and exercising all available enforcement powers to access information

 

Recommendation (B.1, practice)	Curaçao should streamline the enforcement procedures to be followed by the authorities concerned for exercising access powers and ensure that all available enforcement powers are applied as required in cases where information is not provided by the information holders.
Underlying factor	Despite having sanctions for non-compliance with requests for information, the Curaçaon authorities have not applied enforcement procedures in a streamlined and effective manner to ensure compliance by information holders. (see paragraphs 119 to 123 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Curaçao has placed reliance on the submissions made under Recommendations 4 and 6 in relation to the revised and updated National Decree on Administrative Fines and an updated enforcement manual of the Central Bank to indicate its efforts to put in place streamlined procedures for enforcing compliance. The Central Bank has supervisory oversight over trust and company service providers who are often important information holders in Curaçao for EOIR purposes. Further, the EOIR manual has been amended since the 2019 Supplementary Report with a dedicated section on imposition of penalties and fines. The latest EOIR manual from 2025 lays down the procedure for imposition of fines. It stipulates that upon completion of its investigation for gathering the requested information and analysing the gathered information, the Inspector in-charge or the Competent Authority may recommend the imposition of a fine on the investigated party. This fine can be imposed based on the Policy on the determination of the amount of the fine/penalty due in case of failure to comply with the obligation to provide data or information on request published on the website of the Ministry of Finance. The EOIR manual clarifies that the procedure to seek the information from the information holder does not stop when a fine is imposed. If the information is still not provided after imposition of a fine, the Inspectorate of Taxes should use all its enforcement powers to gather information. Since the 2019 Supplementary Report there have been no cases of non-compliance where the Competent Authority was not able to obtain the requested information. Hence, in practice, there has not been a need to impose sanctions.
Conclusion	Curaçao has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment. In practice, Curaçao has not faced non-compliance from information holders since the 2019 Supplementary Review and has been able to answer requests in a timely manner. The update to the EOI manual clarifying the procedure for imposition of penalties to enforce the information gathering powers of the Competent Authority is a step in the right direction. However, there are some ambiguities in the updated manual. For instance, it is not clear if the imposition of penalties is a decision taken after completion of information gathering efforts or can be imposed for compelling the production of information. Further, it is not clear what other enforcement powers of the Inspectorate to gather the requested information would be exercised after the imposition of fine. Curaçao should clarify these aspects in its manual.
Status determined	In the process of being addressed
Actions required	In its next self-assessment in 2028, Curaçao should – Report the measures taken to clarify the aspects of imposition of fines and penalty procedures as indicated in its EOIR manual, such that the measures are taken suitably in all situations for enforcing the information gathering powers of the Competent Authority. Provide further updates on outcomes of its monitoring of the access powers of the Competent Authority, especially where any non-compliance while gathering information is identified.

8. Checking for availability of information even if beyond retention period

 

Recommendation (B.1, practice)	Curaçao should ensure that where foreseeably relevant information has been sought by a treaty partner for periods beyond the statutory retention period for all or part of such information, access powers are similarly used to obtain all available information for exchange.
Underlying factor	Curaçaon authorities declined requests for information in three cases where the period to which the information pertained was beyond the statutory retention period without making an effort to check for the availability of some or all of such information from the information holders, before declining the requests. (see paragraphs 128 and 129 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Curaçao incorporated the step of checking for availability of information (even if it has been requested for periods beyond statutory retention) as part of its EOIR procedures. Curaçao has gathered and exchanged all available information even beyond the retention period (where it was still available) in some cases.
Conclusion	Curaçao has taken actions to address the recommendation. Curaçao has integrated the practice of systematically checking for the availability of all requested information even if it is beyond the statutory retention period. This is now included in Curaçao’s updated EOIR manual as well. Curaçao has reported exchanging requested information beyond the statutory retention period. Peer input has been satisfactory and Curaçao has been able to respond to requests in a timely manner. There are no restrictions in the available access powers of the Competent Authority that limit its ability to access information beyond the statutory record retention period.
Status determined	Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation.
Actions required	No immediate actions required.

Element C.1: Exchange of Information Mechanisms: In Place, Largely Compliant

9. Exchanging information in respect of all persons

 

Recommendation (C.1, practice)	Curaçao should ensure that its interpretation of the standard is applied correctly and information is exchanged in respect of all persons regardless of where they are resident.
Underlying factor	In practice, there was some confusion in the application of the standard and the authorities were unclear about whether information for non-residents of the requesting jurisdiction was relevant and should also be exchanged. (see paragraphs 144 to 148 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	After the Supplementary Review, there were two instances where the tax subject provided written proof of having been a tax resident in another jurisdiction during the period of investigation. Curaçao did not decline these requests. Curaçao reached out to the requesting treaty partner to confirm if there was any discrepancy in the request. During the discussions with the treaty partner, it was concluded that the partner still needed this information as it had reasons to believe that based on the number of days of stay, the subject was potentially a resident for the treaty partner as well. Shortly afterwards, the information was exchanged satisfactorily. Curaçao has referred to the discussions during the Peer Review Group meeting in October 2019 when the Peer Review Group agreed that it is acceptable for a jurisdiction to seek clarifications from the treaty partner based on the gathered information for better matching the requested information and ascertaining its quality prior to exchange.
Conclusion	Curaçao has taken actions to address the recommendation. Curaçao has indicated two situations where the requested information pertained to persons not resident either in Curaçao or in the requesting jurisdiction and yet the requested information was exchanged. Further consultations were undertaken with the requesting jurisdiction only to ascertain that the requested information was still needed by the treaty partner and was immediately exchanged upon receiving such confirmation.
Status determined	Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation.
Actions required	No immediate action required.

10. Exchange information in civil and criminal tax matters

 

Recommendation (C.1, practice)	Curaçao should ensure that going forward, in practice, there is no impediment in exchanging information on civil and criminal tax matters and should ensure that all officials concerned are aware of Curaçao’s legal position in this regard.
Underlying factor	Although there are no legal impediments to the exchange of information in matters of criminal tax investigations in the requesting jurisdiction, during the peer review period, Curaçao turned down three EOI requests for information on the grounds that requests pertaining to criminal investigations must be proceeded with under mutual legal assistance. While Curaçao has now amended its position in this regard, this stand was against the standard during the review period. (see paragraphs 153 to 156 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	After the 2019 Supplementary Review no impediments in exchanging information on civil and criminal tax matters have been registered. Since 2019, EOI requests in four ‘criminal’ cases were received. All requested information was obtained and exchanged. Furthermore, Curaçao has confirmed that all officials are aware of Curaçao’s legal position in this regard, and this has translated into timely completion of these requests.
Conclusion	Curaçao has taken actions to address the recommendation. Curaçao has indicated four cases where the requested information pertained to criminal tax matters and was exchanged after the 2019 Supplementary Report. The EOI manual has been updated to explicitly note that the requested information would be exchanged in respect of all persons in all civil and criminal tax matters.
Status determined	Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation.
Actions required	No immediate action required.

Element C.5: Effective exchange of information

11. Communication and provision of status updates

 

Recommendation (C.5, practice)	Curaçao should ensure that it provides status updates in all cases where responses have not been provided within 90 days.
Underlying factor	During the period under review, delays have been experienced in answering some EOI requests, and Curaçao did not always provide a status update to its EOI partners within 90 days when the Competent Authority was unable to provide a substantive response within that time. (see paragraph 186 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Curaçao has informed that provision of status updates, in all cases where full information cannot be provided within 90 days, has become an important procedural step in handling the EOI requests. For the period from 1 October 2018 to 30 June 2023, Curaçao received 144 requests. Information has been provided in 138 of these cases. Of these 138 cases, information was provided within 90 days in 112 cases. For the remaining 26 fully answered requests, status update notification on the 90th day was issued in 23 cases. Status updates were not provided only in three requests and of these, two were because of the restrictions posed by the Covid19 pandemic. The treaty partners were subsequently informed about the difficulties arising from the pandemic due to which status update could not be provided. Overall, status updates have been provided in 88% of the cases where it was needed.
Conclusion	Curaçao has taken actions to address the recommendation. Curaçao has submitted statistics to demonstrate its consistent efforts at providing status updates. Status updates have been provided systematically in all cases where the requested information could not be provided within 90 days.
Status determined	Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation.
Actions required	No immediate action required. In its next self-assessment in 2028, Curaçao should provide updated status update and timeliness statistics for the corresponding monitoring period, according to paragraph 29 of the methodology for enhanced monitoring.

12. Training of staff and communication with treaty partners

 

Recommendation (C.5, practice)	Curaçao should provide more training to EOI staff and actively engage with its treaty partners and ensure that any legal issue pertaining to treaty provisions or their applicability are clarified mutually based on a common understanding before declining any request.
Underlying factor	Possibly due to lack of experience (as discussed in B.1 and C.1) in handling certain situations, Curaçao erroneously declined certain requests. In particular, in one case Curaçao initially refused to provide information to a treaty partner on the grounds that the Multilateral Convention was not in force for the requested period, while the TIEA was applicable, without discussing the issue with the treaty partner. This led to withdrawal of the request by the treaty partner. (see paragraphs 188, 189 and 195 of Curaçao’s 2019 Supplementary Report for more information)
Summary of actions reported	Measures have been taken to ensure that the staff are well-trained and communicates promptly with treaty partners as needed. The EOIR staff follow online courses or trainings provided by the Global Forum Secretariat or its partners to keep abreast of any changes in this regard. During the monitoring period, the EOIR staff participated via zoom meetings to or meetings on location to several trainings and information sessions organised by the Global Forum. Whenever the Competent Authority staff notice that there is a need for a clarification, the staff actively engage with their treaty partners via either email or conference call, in order to clarify their understanding, complete any missing information or address items/remarks made while assessing a request. The staff ensure that any legal issue pertaining to treaty provisions or their applicability are clarified mutually based on a common understanding before declining any request. After the review period pertaining to the 2019 Supplementary Report only one request was declined, due to the fact that this request was made based on incorrect legal grounds. After corresponding with the treaty partner, a new request was provided to Curaçao which has been duly responded.
Conclusion	Curaçao has taken actions to address the recommendation. The EOIR staff have been trained, and the EOI manual has been updated on procedural and prompt communication aspects, including on seeking clarifications where needed. No peer input indicating any issues on these aspects has been received and Curaçao has answered all its requests received during the monitoring period.
Status determined	Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation.
Actions required	No immediate action required.

EOIR experience

Over the monitoring period, Curaçao received 41 requests and did not send any request. The Netherlands, Spain and France were the top three partners in respect of incoming requests. Curaçao reported providing full and final responses in 39 or 95% of all the received requests, while the remaining 2 requests (5%) were withdrawn by the treaty partner.

Six members provided peer input on Curaçao. Of these, three peers had not had exchange of information with Curaçao during the monitoring period. The other three peers reported general satisfaction in respect of their EOIR experience with Curaçao.

New developments having a bearing on the EOIR standard

No recent developments that could have a bearing on the EOIR standard (other than those reported to address recommendations) have been reported by Curaçao or have otherwise come to light.

Next steps

Curaçao should continue taking actions towards implementing the standard effectively.

Under the first round of enhanced monitoring, two new recommendations have been issued to Curaçao.

13. Harmonising the definition of beneficial ownership across laws for consistent application

 

Recommendation (A.1, framework)

Curaçao is recommended to ensure that the definition of beneficial owners across all the relevant laws is harmonised and is in line with the standard.

Underlying factor

Curaçao amended the definition of beneficial ownership under the National Ordinance on General National Taxes [Tax Ordinance] in May 2024 to remove the threshold of 25% in respect of partnerships to ensure identification of beneficial owners of partnerships in line with their form and structure. However, the definition of beneficial ownership under the National Ordinance on Identification in the Provision of Services [the AML Ordinance] continues to have a threshold for identifying beneficial owners of partnerships. The difference in the definition available in the two laws could lead to inconsistent identification of beneficial owners as AML-obliged persons and AML-supervisors have a key role in ensuring the availability of beneficial ownership information for all relevant legal entities and arrangements in Curaçao.

14. Monitoring the implementation of recent changes in the legal framework in respect of beneficial ownership information

 

Recommendation (A.1, practice)

Curaçao is recommended to implement and supervise the recent changes to its legal framework including the operationalisation of its central beneficial ownership register to ensure the availability of accurate, adequate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information in line with the standard

Underlying factor

Since May 2024, the definition of beneficial ownership under the Tax Ordinance in respect of partnerships has been brought in line with the standard. The AML Ordinance was also amended to improve the definition of beneficial ownership. Further, since July 2024, a central beneficial ownership register has also been put in place. All entities and arrangements were required to submit their beneficial ownership information to the central beneficial ownership register by July 2025. All these recent changes made in the legal framework need to be implemented and requirements have to be enforced.

The following next steps are expected from Curaçao:

• For the recommendation where lack of material progress has been identified for more than three years since the last review, Curaçao should submit to the PRMG – i) a schedule for completion of steps to address the recommendation and ii) an update, including details on the progress on such recommendation by 31 March 2027 in relation to

  • Recommendation 6, on effective exercise of enforcement powers to check non-compliance (Element A.2).

• Submit the next self-assessment, including on the new recommendations issued, in 2028 under the second round of enhanced monitoring.

• See also Chapter 1 (Scope and methodology), section on “PRMG decisions – Statuses determined and actions required”, which explains the next steps expected on recommendations that are “Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation”.

Views/response of the monitored jurisdiction

The Government of Curaçao acknowledges the approval of the Enhanced Monitoring Report by the Peer Review Monitoring Group that will be further presented to the Global Forum for adoption.

Curaçao repeats its strong commitment to the international standards on transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes and values the peer review process as an important mechanism for promoting effective international cooperation.

Curaçao welcomes the recognition in the report of progress achieved in strengthening its legal and administrative framework, including improvements in the anti-money laundering legislation with regard to the ultimate beneficial owner and, amendment in the tax legislation with regard to the definition of ultimate beneficial owner for partnerships to bring it in line with the standard and the implementation of the ultimate beneficial owner registry.

Curaçao takes note of the recommendations contained in the report and plans to initiate further measures to address them. These include:

• further amendment to the anti-money laundering regulation to harmonise the definition of beneficial ownership across laws for consistent application;

• monitoring the understanding of the definition of the ultimate beneficial owner that is in line with the standard;

• ongoing monitoring and supervision to ensure effective implementation in practice;

• effective exercise of enforcement powers on entities that are non-compliant; and

• provide the statistics and information to demonstrate the necessary improvements in line with the standard.

Curaçao emphasizes that implementation of certain recommendations will be carried out in a manner consistent with its domestic legal framework, including constitutional safeguards and principles of proportionality.

Curaçao remains fully committed to ongoing engagement with the Global Forum and to addressing the recommendations identified in the report.

The Government of Curaçao appreciates the constructive dialogue and guidance received.

Notes

← 1.  OECD (2017), Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Curaçao 2017 (Second Round): Peer Review Report on the Exchange of Information on Request, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264283718-en

← 2.  OECD (2019), Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes Peer Reviews: Curaçao 2019 (Second Round, Supplementary Report): Peer Review Report on the Exchange of Information on Request, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f2c9b28-en.