Background Check Group
+6531 290 390
Email: info@backcheckgroup.com
Background Check Group
Global Reach Local Insight Headquartered in Singapore serve clients in more than 200 countries
General Information |
|
| GDP | USD36.253bn (World ranking 88, World Bank 2012) |
| Population | 3.8 million (World ranking 129, World Bank 2012) |
| Form of state | Constitutional Democracy |
| Head of government | Juan Carlos VARELA (PP) |
| Next elections | 2019, presidential and legislative |
Galindo, arias & Lopez
Diego herrera
James sattin
Jose Luis sosa
In recent years, Panama has taken significant legislative steps to regulate electronic data protection and internet commerce. However, this regime remains a work in progress.
The primary laws and regulations thus far enacted are Law 51 of 22 July 2008, as amended by Law 82 of 9 November 2012 (“Law 51”), and Executive Decree No. 40 of 19 May 2009 (“Decree 40”). The central purpose of both Law 51 and Decree 40 is to regulate the creation, utilization and storage of electronic documents and signatures in Panama, through a registration process and the supervision of providers of data storage services. Law 51 and Decree 40 provide for enforcement through the General Directorate of Electronic Commerce (Direction General de Comercio Electrónico) (“DGCE”).
Personal Data is not expressly defined under Panamanian law. However, it is generally deemed to include information that can specifically identify an individual, such as one’s name, postal address (including billing and shipping addresses), telephone number, e-mail address, credit card number, or a username.
“Sensitive Personal Data” is not defined under Panamanian Law.
The General Directorate of Electronic Commerce
Under Decree 40, electronic data storage companies and companies engaged in online electronic signature verification must register with the DGCE. For companies otherwise engaged in e-commerce-related activities, registration with the DGCE is voluntary and can be completed online and free of cost. Registration must occur no later than 15 days prior to the commencement of data processing activities and shall include, inter alia, the following information:
Moreover, for companies that are engaged in each of the activities for which registration is mandatory, Law 51 and Decree 40 set forth certain additional registration requirements.
Appointment of a data protection officer is not required.
In Panama, personal information is protected at the constitutional level. The Constitution provides that any person or entity that obtains personal information and/or personal documents, either from a person or a company who provides such information willingly, or through any other means, may not disclose such information without the consent of its lawful owner (there
is no specific definition or explanation of who is considered the “lawful owner” of personal information). An exception to the consent rule is the disclosure of such information pursuant to a valid judicial or governmental request.
The disclosure of personal information without consent is also prohibited by the Panamanian Criminal Code. Criminal penalties apply to the disclosure of personal information when the disclosure causes harm to the information’s lawful owner. Law 51 specifically establishes that this criminal law prohibition applies to electronically stored information.
Panamanian law further requires that providers of online data storage services take reasonable measures to ensure that company personnel who come into contact with confidential information do not have a criminal record, have obtained the necessary technical skills
to handle such data and information, and possess reasonable knowledge of existing legal restrictions related to the disclosure of such information. Although this prohibition is specifically intended to apply to entities that provide online data storage services, it is not unforeseeable that it could also be construed to apply to any company engaged in e-commerce.
Although the Panamanian e-commerce regulatory framework is not yet fully developed, the existing regulations follow the constitutional principle that the consent of the lawful owner is required for the transfer of any personal information.
Pursuant to Law 51, when a customer provides his email address during the process of acquiring or subscribing to a service offered online, the company providing such service must disclose to the customer its intent to use the email address in the future for commercial communications and, further, must obtain the customer’s express consent for such purposes.
The client or customer must also be able to revoke such consent easily, through a simple process made available by the provider of the service.
While the manner in which this restriction appears to have been drafted suggests that it applies exclusively to online service providers, its broader application to all companies that sell products online or are engaged in e-commerce activities is foreseeable.
Decree 40 establishes certain security requirements applicable only to electronic data storage and electronic signature verification companies, for whom registration with the DGCE is mandatory. The main requirements are adherence to the security parameters periodically published by the DGCE, and the performance of annual self-audits, the results of which must be filed with the DGCE in order for the company to renew its registration. In addition, these
companies must create a disaster recovery plan that allows such providers to re-establish regular operations within twelve hours of the occurrence of a disruptive event.
No similar provisions have been enacted with respect to companies who engage in other types of e-commerce, ie, those for whom registration is voluntary.
Law 51 does not require breach notification.
The DGCE is responsible for enforcement of the existing e-commerce and related regulations, including the publication of additional complementary regulations. Sanctions include the suspension or permanent ban of the activities of companies that infringe certain regulations, as well as fines of up to US$150,000.
With respect to email advertising, Panamanian law requires that all such emails: (i) state that they are commercial communications; (ii) include the name of the sender; and (iii) set forth the mechanism through which the recipient may choose not to receive any further communications from the particular sender. These requirements apply to other promotional offers as well.
Further, although opt-out tools are not prohibited, the client’s initial opt-in consent is specifically required to use the client’s email for advertising purposes. Further, although no specific prohibition has been enacted with respect to the use of information for online advertising, obtaining the customer’s consent is always preferable.
The existing regulatory framework does not yet address location data, cookies, local storage objects or other similar data-gathering tools.
The Republic of Panama has a set of provisions related to criminalization of the acts of corruption in its Criminal Code.
(In Spanish)
Código Penal
Título X Delitos Contra la Administración Pública
Capítulo I Diferentes Formas de Peculado
Artículo 332. El servidor público que sustraiga o malverse de cualquier forma, o consienta que otro se apropie, sustraiga o malverse de cualquier forma dinero, valores o bienes, cuya administración, percepción o custodia le hayan sido confiados por razón de su cargo, será sancionado con prisión de cuatro a diez años.
Si la cuantía de lo apropiado supera la suma de cien mil balboas (B/.100,000.00) o si el dinero, valores o bienes apropiados estuvieran destinados a fines asistenciales o a programas de desarrollo o de apoyo social, la pena será de ocho a quince años de prisión.
Artículo 333. El servidor público que, en ejercicio de su cargo y aprovechándose de error ajeno, se apropie, sustraiga o utilice, en beneficio propio o de un tercero, dinero, valores o bienes nacionales o municipales será sancionado con prisión de cuatro a ocho años.
Artículo 334. El servidor público que culposamente da ocasión a que se extravíen o pierdan dinero, valores o bienes, cuya administración, percepción o custodia le hayan sido confiados por razón de su cargo, o da ocasión a que otra persona los sustraiga, utilice o se apropie de ellos, en beneficio propio o de un tercero, será sancionado con prisión de tres a seis años.
La persona que, aprovechándose de dicha conducta, sustraiga, utilice o se apropie del dinero, valores o bienes a que se refiere el párrafo anterior, será sancionada con prisión de cuatro a seis años.
Artículo 335. El servidor público que, para fines ajenos al servicio, use en beneficio propio o ajeno, o permita que otro use dinero, valores o bienes que estén bajo su cargo por razón de sus funciones o que se hallen bajo su guarda sera sancionado con prisión de uno a tres años, o su equivalente en días-multa o arresto de fines de semana.
La misma pena se aplicará al servidor público que utilice trabajos o servicios oficiales en su beneficio o permita que otro lo haga.
Artículo 336. El servidor público que dé a los caudales o efectos que administra una aplicación o función pública distinta de aquella a la cual estuvieran destinados y resulta afectado el servicio o función encomendado, será sancionado con prisión de uno a tres años.
La pena será de tres a seis años de prisión, si se actúa con el propósito de obtener un beneficio propio o para un tercero, o si los caudales o efectos estuvieran destinados a fines asistenciales o a programas de desarrollo o de apoyo social y resulta afectado el servicio o función encomendado.
Artículo 337. Las disposiciones de este Capítulo son extensivas:
1. A quien se halle encargado, por cualquier concepto, de fondos, rentas o efectos de una entidad pública.
2. Al particular legalmente designado como depositario de caudales o efectos públicos.
3. Al administrador o depositario de dinero o bienes embargados, secuestrados o depositados por autoridad pública, aunque pertenezcan a particulares.
4. A las personas o a los representantes de personas jurídicas que se hallen encargados de administrar dinero, bienes o valores que formen parte de una donación realizada para el Estado proveniente del extranjero o hecha por el Estado para obras de carácter público y de interés social.
5. A los trabajadores de empresas de servicios públicos en las que el Estado tenga participación económica, salvo que una ley especial establezca otra situación.
Artículo 338. Cuando antes de dictarse la resolución de elevación de la causa a juicio, el responsable de los delitos descritos en los artículos 332, 333 y 335 reintegra los dineros y sus intereses, bienes o valores objeto de los delitos, la sanción se reducirá a la mitad. Si lo hace después de dictado el auto y antes de la sentencia de primera instancia, la reducción será de una tercera parte.
Capítulo II Corrupción de Servidores Públicos
Artículo 339. Será sancionado con prisión de dos a cuatro años el servidor público que, personalmente o por persona interpuesta, incurra en las siguientes conductas:
1. Acepte, reciba o solicite donativo, promesa, dinero o cualquier beneficio o ventaja, para realizar, omitir o retardar un acto en violación de sus obligaciones, o quien las acepte a consecuencia de haber faltado a ellas.
2. Acepte, reciba o solicite donativo, promesa, dinero o cualquier ventaja o beneficio indebido, para realizar un acto propio de su cargo o empleo, sin faltar a sus obligaciones, o como consecuencia del acto ya realizado.
Artículo 340. El servidor público que, desempeñándose como miembro del Órgano Judicial o del Ministerio Público, autoridad administrativa, árbitro o cualquier cargo que deba decidir un asunto de su conocimiento o competencia, personalmente o por persona interpuesta, acepte, reciba o solicite donativo, promesa, dinero, beneficio o ventaja para perjudicar o favorecer a una de las partes en el proceso, o a consecuencia de haber perjudicado o favorecido a una de ellas, será sancionado con prisión de cuatro a ocho años.
Igual sanción se aplicará al funcionario del Órgano Judicial o del Ministerio Público que:
1. Por colusión o por otros medios fraudulentos, profiera resolución manifiestamente contraria a la Constitución Política o a la ley, de modo que cause perjuicio.
2. Por colusión o por otros medios fraudulentos, reciba o dé consejos jurídicos a cualquiera de las partes, de modo que cause perjuicio.
3. Por imprudencia grave o ignorancia inexcusable, dicte sentencia manifiestamente contraria a la Constitución Política o a la ley, de modo que cause perjuicio.
4. Retarde maliciosamente un proceso sometido a su decisión.
Si de las conductas previstas en este artículo resulta la condena de una persona inocente, la sanción será de cinco a diez años de prisión.
Artículo 341. Quien, bajo cualquier modalidad, ofrezca, prometa o entregue a un servidor público donativo, promesa, dinero o cualquier beneficio o ventaja para que realice, retarde u omita algún acto propio de su cargo o empleo o en violación de sus obligaciones, será sancionado con prisión de tres a seis años.
Artículo 342. El servidor público que utilice a favor suyo o de un tercero información o dato de carácter reservado o confidencial y de acceso restringido del que tenga conocimiento por razón de su cargo será sancionado con prisión de cuatro a ocho años.
Artículo 343. El servidor público que acepte un nombramiento para un cargo público o perciba remuneración del Estado sin prestar el servicio al cual ha sido designado, sin causa justificada, será sancionado con ciento cincuenta a trescientos días-multa o trabajo comunitario.
Artículo 344. Cuando cualquiera de las conductas descritas en los artículos 339, 340 y 341 de este Código, se realice sobre un servidor público de otro Estado o funcionario de organismo internacional público, para que dicho servidor o funcionario realice, omita o retarde cualquier acto en violación de sus obligaciones, o para que realice algún acto propio de su cargo o empleo, o a consecuencia de los actos ya realizados, la sanción será de prisión de cinco a ocho años.
Capítulo III Enriquecimiento Injustificado
Artículo 345. El servidor público que, personalmente o por interpuesta persona, incremente indebidamente su patrimonio respecto a los ingresos legítimos obtenidos durante el ejercicio de su cargo y hasta cinco años después de haber cesado en el cargo, y cuya procedencia lícita no pueda justificar será sancionado con prisión de tres a seis años.
La pena será de seis a doce años de prisión si lo injustificadamente obtenido supera la suma de cien mil balboas (B/.100,000.00).
La misma sanción se aplicará a la persona interpuesta para disimular el incremento patrimonial no justificado.
Para efectos de esta disposición, se entenderá que hay enriquecimiento injustificado, no solo cuando el patrimonio se hubiera aumentado con dinero, cosas o bienes, respecto a sus ingresos legítimos, sino también cuando se hubieran cancelado deudas o extinguido obligaciones que lo afectaban.
Capítulo IV Concusión y Exacción
Artículo 346. El servidor público que induzca a alguien a dar o a prometer indebidamente dinero u otra utilidad en beneficio propio o de un tercero será sancionado con prisión tres a seis años.
Artículo 347. El servidor público que cobre algún impuesto, tasa, gravamen, contribución o derecho inexistente sera sancionado con prisión de tres a seis años. Si el cobro es legal, pero se usa algún medio no autorizado por la ley, la sanción será de seis meses a un año de prisión o su equivalente en días-multa o arresto de fines de semana.
Capítulo V Tráfico de Influencias
Artículo 348. Quien valiéndose de su influencia o simulando tenerla, solicite, reciba, acepte promesa o prometa en beneficio propio o de un tercero, dinero, bienes o cualquier otro provecho económico o con efecto jurídico, con el fin de obtener un beneficio de parte de un servidor público o un servidor público extranjero de una organización internacional en asunto que se encuentre conociendo o pueda conocer, será sancionado con prisión de cuatro a seis años.
La pena será de cinco a ocho años de prisión, si quien ejerce o simule influencia es un superior jerárquico de quien conoce o debe conocer el asunto de que se trata.
Panama‘s strategic geographic location and status as a regional financial center make it an attractive jurisdiction for money launderers. Panama‘s success in establishing itself as a regional business and logistics hub, based on the success of its ports, airport and the Colon Free Zone – the second largest free trade zone in the world – have enhanced its attractiveness for organizations engaged in illicit financial activities.
Money laundering in Panama is believed to be primarily related to the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking, and the country sits along major drug trafficking routes. The work of launderers is facilitated by weaknesses in the regulatory framework, notably the existence of bearer share corporations, but more importantly by uneven enforcement of anti-money laundering measures and the weak judicial system, which is susceptible to corruption and favoritism.
After negotiating and signing 13 Double Taxation Treaties with OECD members, and ratifying the Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the United States in 2010, Panama achieved removal from the OECD‘s gray list of tax havens in July 2011.
A PEP is an abbreviation for Politically Exposed Person, a term that describes a person who has been entrusted with a prominent public function, or an individual who is closely related to such a person. The terms PEP, Politically Exposed Person and Senior Foreign Political Figure are often used interchangeably
The following is a list of Know Your Customer entities covered by Panamanian Law:
Number of STRs received and time frame: 563 in 2010
Number of CTRs received and time frame: 495,546 in 2010
The following is a list of STR covered entities covered by Panamanian Law:
Prosecutions: Not available
Convictions: 22 in 2010
Panama cooperates well with U.S. law enforcement agencies. However, the notable successes the Government of Panama (GOP) has had in interdicting flows of illegal drugs have not been matched by similar success in addressing money laundering concerns. The various government agencies tasked with addressing money laundering remain fractured and under-resourced, and communicate poorly with one another. Panama‘s financial intelligence unit, the UAF, in particular, lacks the resources to process and investigate, let alone enforce, reporting requirements on suspicious transactions. The judicial branch‘s capacity to successfully try and convict money launderers remains weak, and judges remain susceptible to corruption. Although the GOP took a step forward with the introduction of know-your-client legislation requiring lawyers to conduct due diligence into the beneficial owners of the companies they incorporate, the continued existence of bearer shares corporations remains a vulnerability of the anti-money laundering regulatory framework.
Panama, through its Customs Authority, is taking steps to reduce the use of Tocumen Airport as an artery for cash couriers to move cash into Panama. More targeted enforcement action, in collaboration with U.S. law enforcement agencies, has led to increased scrutiny of passengers and notable seizures of undeclared cash at the airport.
Customs also has been effective in disrupting trade-based money laundering through the partnership of the Panamanian and U.S. trade transparency units (TTU). Established in 2010 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Panama‘s Customs authority, the Panamanian TTU has had significant success. Despite these advances, Customs lacks sufficient resources to fulfill its mandate.
The Colon Free Trade Zone (CFZ) continues to be vulnerable to abuse by criminal groups through illicit financial activities, due primarily to insufficient enforcement of existing controls. The new electronic transaction recording information system, when fully implemented, will improve capacity to trace transactions. Bulk cash is relatively easily introduced into the country by declaring it is for use in the CFZ. A new resolution, published December 14, 2011, improves the AML/CFT framework in the CFZ. The resolution has 25 articles that supersede and include all the provisions of law 42 of 2000 and Decree JD-008 of 2008. It will enter into force 60 days after publication. Among the items addressed are the requirement to have a compliance officer in each company; implementation of preventative measures, supervision, inspection and sanctions; STR and CTR reporting; and know your customer policies.
During 2011, the GOP took steps to continue to improve the legislative framework governing anti-money laundering and financial sector transparency. In 2011, Panama passed legislation (Law 2 of 2011) requiring lawyers to know their clients, conduct due diligence on the beneficial ownership of corporations they establish and share that information with the authorities upon request. These steps have strengthened Panama‘s regulatory framework. Panama also is drafting new anti-money laundering legislation, which would strengthen the UAF‘s authority and increase the number of sectors required to report suspicious transactions.
If the GOP continues its efforts to improve its anti-money laundering legal framework, particularly eliminating bearer shares, criminalizing ―tipping off,‖ improving the strength of the prosecutor‘s office and the judicial system, and creating a more transparent financial network, money laundering will become more difficult within Panama‘s borders.
RECIPIENT
[BUILDING] [FLOOR] [APARTMENT]
[[STREET_TYPE STREET_NAME] [HOUSE_NUMBER]]
[DEPENDENT_LOCALITY]
[APARTADO OFFICE_BOX_NUMBER]
POSTAL_CODE, POST_OFFICE
PROVINCIA DE PROVINCE
PANAMA
Sample
MARTÍN GUTIERREZ
Via Israel 3
0424, VOLCÁN
Chiriquí
PANAMA
| Calendar | GMT | Reference | Actual | Previous | Consensus | Forecast |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-03-11 | 03:00 PM | Q4 2012 | 10% | 10.6% | ||
| 2013-09-13 | 08:00 PM | Q2 2013 | 7.6% | 7.0% | 6.5% | |
| 2013-12-20 | 05:00 PM | Q3 2013 | 8.9% | 7.7% (R) | 6.62% |
We will not leak your personal information