Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter  Follow us on LinkedIn
 

11 April 2012

EBA, ESMA and EIOPA publish two reports on Money Laundering


Default: Change to:


The Joint Committee of the three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, ESMA and EIOPA) has today published two reports on the implementation of the Third Money Laundering Directive.


The “Report on the legal, regulatory and supervisory implementation across EU Member States in relation to the Beneficial Owners Customer Due Diligence requirements” analyses EU Member States’ current legal, regulatory and supervisory implementation of the anti-money laundering/counter terrorist financing (AML/CTF) frameworks related to the application by different credit and financial institutions of Customer Due Diligence (CDD) measures on their customers’ beneficial owners. The report sought to identify differences in the implementation of the Directive and to determine whether such differences create a gap in the EU AML/CTF regime that could be exploited by criminals for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes.      

The “Report on the legal and regulatory provisions and supervisory expectations across EU Member States of Simplified Due Diligence requirements where the customers are credit and financial institutions” provides an overview of EU Member States’ legal and regulatory provisions and supervisory expectations in relation to the application of Simplified Due Diligence (SDD) requirements of the third Money Laundering Directive (3MLD). The report focuses exclusively on one particular situation of low risk where SDD is applicable, namely where the customer is a credit or financial institution situated in a EU/EEA state or in a country that imposes equivalent AML/CFT requirements.

Both reports come to the conclusion that there are significant differences in the implementation across the EU Member States, and that some of these differences could create undesirable effects on the common European Anti Money Laundering Regime. The reports find that some of these differences are not due to the Directive’s minimum harmonisation approach, but instead appear to stem from different national interpretations of the Directive’s requirements. Both reports also call on the European Union to consider addressing these problems.

Full information

Report I

Report II



© EBA


< Next Previous >
Key
 Hover over the blue highlighted text to view the acronym meaning
Hover over these icons for more information



Add new comment