I think banks have been reassured about the possible negative impact of negative rates on some of them. They know we will not take rates into absurdly negative territory. But we can never rule out further moves. That would not be credible anyway. Over the last few months the ECB has been suggesting that it has done its part in the euro zone recovery, and has been asking governments to do theirs. At the same time, it insists it could do even more if needed, and that its toolbox is far from empty. Isn’t that partly contradictory? The roles of the ECB and governments are different. Our job is to bring inflation back to its near-2% level. That’s our mandate; you could say that’s our contract. Whenever we have doubts that the goal will be reached, we act. Monetary policy has a short-to-medium-term horizon. We think it is up to governments to act to foster long-term growth. According to the European Commission, potential growth in the euro area is at around 1% today. It was almost twice that in the years before the crisis. And we think that structural and fiscal policy must be used wherever there is scope to do so, in terms of both quantity and quality. But it is not the ECB’s role to go into detail about what governments should do. The founding treaties are explicit and give us different roles. The idea that the central bank should be the gendarme of economic policy among euro area countries simply doesn’t work.
•  Fourth, lack of anti-money laundering practices in a bank may also affect it’s relationships with correspondent banks because reputable international banks would not want to be associated with banks that do not practice basic anti-money laundering techniques, and therefore be a threaten to their own operations. •  Fifth, money laundering compromises the corporate governance structure of banks. This is an area of concern especially among the small banks when it comes to deposit mobilisation and customer selection. Mr Chairman, the increasing integration of financial systems means that money launderers can now make use of the financial system to hide the proceeds of the illegal activities easily. Launderers are now able to quickly move illicit money between national jurisdictions, therefore complicating the task of tracing and confiscating these assets. Further, differences in money laundering legislation and in the implementation of international standards such as, know your customer regulations, customer identification and secrecy laws have led to regulatory arbitrage. This has worked to the advantage of money launderers because they can move the proceeds of their activities to less regulated territories where there are lax laws. Therefore, to avoid launderers from taking advantage of the weaknesses in the application of international law, many governments have decided to co-operate in order to combat money laundering. In this regard, the most notable international initiatives/responses to money laundering include: •  First, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).