Common use of Significant Non-Compliance Clause in Contracts

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Colombian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Portuguese Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Australian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Irish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Honduran Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Slovak Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Italian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Jamaican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Panamanian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Polish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Belgian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Latvian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Curaçao Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Tunisian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Barbados Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Mexican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Guyanese Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Hungarian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Cyprus Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Israeli Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius French Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius South African Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Guernsey Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles Article 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Argentine Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Finnish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Hellenic Republic Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Philippine Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Czech Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Brazilian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Costa Rican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Romanian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Dominican Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Saint Lucia Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius New Zealand Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Netherlands Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Estonian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Malta Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Liechtenstein Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Turkish Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Indian Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.

Significant Non-Compliance. Under Article 5(2) of the IGA, the receiving Competent Authority has the discretion to determine whether there is significant non-compliance with the obligations to obtain and exchange information described in Articles 2(2) and 4(1)(b) of the IGA with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The U.S. Competent Authority also has the discretion to determine significant non-compliance based on failure to satisfy due diligence, reporting, withholding and other obligations with respect to a Reporting Mauritius Manx Financial Institution. The receiving Competent Authority may determine that certain failures constitute significant non-compliance with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution regardless of whether the failure is attributable to the providing Competent Authority or the Reporting Financial Institution. Examples of significant non-compliance are set forth in Paragraphs 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.3.