<![CDATA[This research is motivated by the disharmony between Presidential Regulation No. 18 of 2017 concerning Procedures for Receiving and Providing Donations by Community Organizations in the Prevention of Terrorist Financing Crimes and the international standard of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation 8, revised in June 2016. This research aims to explain the contribution of community organizations in Presidential Regulation 18/2017 and review the criticisms of FATF Recommendation 8 after the revision. This research is a qualitative study with a library research design using a normative legal approach. The results show that Presidential Regulation 18/2017 regulates the obligation of donors with a threshold of IDR 5,000,000 and the requirement to collect nine personal data items, the obligation to forgive the recipient of the donation, the obligation to store data for a minimum of five years, and a monitoring mechanism by the Minister and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK). FATF R.8's criticism of Presidential Regulation 18/2017 includes the application of a blanket approach without risk differentiation, which differs from the principles of a risk-based approach, requirements that extend beyond FATF provisions, the unclear parameter of "less capable countries," and the absence of a sectoral risk assessment mechanism. Articles that align with FATF R.8 are Article 2 paragraph (3) and Article 16, while articles that are inconsistent include Article 3 paragraph (2) letter a, Article 4 paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 3 paragraph (2) letters b, c, and paragraph (3). Matters not included in Presidential Regulation 18/2017 include a sectoral risk assessment mechanism, provisions for NPO involvement in policy consultations, affirmation of respect for human rights, recognition of humanitarian emergencies, and recognition of NPO self-regulatory actions. This study concludes that revision of Presidential Regulation 18/2017 is necessary to align with FATF R.8 through the implementation of differentiated national risk assessments, increasing the recognition threshold, and establishing a mechanism for ongoing dialogue between the government and the NPO sector.]]>
