Diene KeitaPerson

S2 Identity & biographical profile

Canonical nameDiene Keitaio_un_ceb

Known aliasesOnly the primary name variant is published by UN System Chief Executives Board — Executive Heads.

Date of birthNot published by source (UN System Chief Executives Board — Executive Heads), and no estimate could be derived from a linked record, secondary source, or office-eligibility bound.

NationalityGuineaio_un_ceb

IdentifiersNone published by our sources.

S3 Position, public function & influence

Office / roleExecutive Director, UN Population Fundio_un_ceb

Government branchInternational organizations (B7)io_un_cebmethodology

Seniority (why this office matters)Level 1 — Apex of state power — head of state/government, cabinet, apex judiciary, top military/intelligence, central bank governor.io_un_cebmethodology

Term(s) in officeTerm dates not published by the source.

StatusCurrent — the source lists this person as a serving office-holder.io_un_cebmethodology

S4 PEP classification & methodology

ClassificationLevel 1 (International organizations) — Apex of state power — head of state/government, cabinet, apex judiciary, top military/intelligence, central bank governor.io_un_cebmethodology

A source-attributed classification requiring enhanced due diligence — not an allegation of wrongdoing and not a sanction. The public methodology (levels, branches, decay model) is linked in the source registry below.

Retention & decayOnce former, this classification is retained for 50 years after leaving office (the Level 1 retention window). EU AMLD requires enhanced measures to continue for at least 12 months after a PEP leaves office; the retention windows applied here are deliberately longer.methodologyEU AMLD

S5 Sanctions & watchlist cross-check

No sanctions or watchlist match found in our resolved corpus for this record as of 2026-07-09 (list version io_un_ceb@2026-07-09). This is not a clearance: it reflects our sources and our precision-first resolution method, and does not discharge an institution's own screening obligations.

S6 Relatives & close associates (RCA)

No relatives or close associates are recorded in our sources as of 2026-07-09. This reflects our current source coverage — not a finding that none exist. FATF R.12 extends EDD obligations to relatives and close associates; institutions must establish these through their own KYC.

S7 Jurisdiction & country-risk context

Jurisdiction of office / nationalityGuineaio_un_ceb

FATF statusGuinea is not on the FATF Call-for-Action ("black") or Increased-Monitoring ("grey") lists as of 2026-06-19 (FATF Plenary, Paris, 17-19 June 2026; both statements checked). Source: FATF.FATF listFATF list

Corruption Perceptions IndexGuinea scores 26/100 in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 (rank 142; 100 = perceived cleanest) — a published perception measure of public-sector corruption in the jurisdiction. Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 (2026) by Transparency International, licensed under CC BY 4.0.TI CPI

Country-risk indicators are published facts about the jurisdiction of office — never a score of, or finding about, this person.

S8 EDD obligation indicators

Indicated EDD postureHigher EDD attention. A deterministic, non-numeric statement of which EDD obligations published regulation attaches to the published classification facts below — not a risk score, not a verdict on this person, and not a substitute for the institution's own risk rating.rubricFATF R.12

InputSeniority: Level 1 (International organizations).io_un_cebmethodology

InputStatus: current office-holder.io_un_cebmethodology

InputSanctions cross-check: no confirmed designation in our resolved corpus as of 2026-07-09 (see the cross-check section; not a clearance).

InputJurisdiction country-risk status: FATF/CPI indicators are reported in the jurisdiction & country-risk section above, but are not yet an input to this band derivation — rubric v1 derives from seniority, status, and the sanctions cross-check only (when country-risk becomes a rubric input, a FATF-listed jurisdiction elevates the band one step).

Rubric v1.0.0Band derivation (deterministic, code-owned): Level 1 → Higher, Level 2 → Elevated, Level 3/RCA → Standard; a former office-holder within the retention window steps down one band, past it rests at Standard; a resolver-confirmed designation always sets the top band; an unconfirmed status never lowers the band; jurisdiction country-risk indicators are reported in the jurisdiction section but are not yet a band input — FATF-listed-jurisdiction elevation lands with a future rubric version. No numeric score exists anywhere in this derivation.

FATF Recommendation 12 attaches four mandatory measures to foreign PEPs — risk-management systems to determine PEP status; senior-management approval; reasonable measures to establish source of wealth and funds; enhanced ongoing monitoring — and applies them to domestic PEPs and international-organisation officials on a risk-sensitive basis. Foreign-vs-domestic depends on the institution's own jurisdiction, which this report cannot know.FATF R.12

The institution's own risk rating, senior-management approval, and source-of-funds verification remain its sole responsibility (standing notice above).

S9 Source of wealth / source of funds

Not assessed. Source-of-wealth and source-of-funds verification are obligations the regulated institution performs on customer-provided information (FATF R.12(c); EU AMLR Art. 42). They cannot be supplied by a screening-data vendor and are outside the scope of this screening aid.

S10 Adverse media

Not assessed. This report does not include adverse-media screening as of 2026-07-09. The absence of adverse-media content here is not a clean bill and does not discharge an institution's own negative-news screening.

S11 Ongoing monitoring & freshness

Observation windowFirst observed 2026-07-09; last confirmed 2026-07-09.io_un_ceb

Source confirmationConfirmed present in UN System Chief Executives Board — Executive Heads list version io_un_ceb@2026-07-09, observed 2026-07-09.io_un_ceb

Decay / retentionRetention posture: currently in office; the 50-year decay window starts only on leaving office.methodology

What changes here: the report regenerates whenever this record's source data changes, in the same daily refresh that drives customer re-screening; unchanged data produces a byte-identical report.

Institutions needing change alerts on this record: the screening API offers continuous monitoring — see /about/#api.

S12 Sources, provenance & citations

Every factual claim above carries a citation resolving to a row below (dataset, per-record publication page, jurisdiction-context reference, issuing authority, license, confidence tier, observation dates, list version + manifest hash). A machine-checkable gate rejects any report with an uncited claim.

How to citeHow to cite this report: “Diene Keita — Enhanced Due Diligence Report (ProofAML), as of 2026-07-09. https://proofaml.com/people/diene-keita-nkf88bae08/#edd-report — reflects the official sources listed in the registry.”

S13 Correction & dispute path

Our dataOur error (wrong merge, stale field, mis-parse): request a correction via /about/#corrections or corrections@proofaml.com — acknowledged and resolved within 5 business days.

Source recordErrors in the underlying official record belong to the issuing authority listed in the registry above — we reflect official lists and are not the issuing authority.

This reportA report that misstates its cited sources is a generation defect (bug severity): use the same correction queue; any generated narrative is pulled to template-only immediately on receipt while investigated.