REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mechanisms to be put in place by the Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council22 constitutes the main legal instrument for the prevention of the use of the Union financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. That Directive sets out a comprehensive legal framework, which Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and the Council23 further strengthened by addressing emerging risks and increasing transparency of beneficial ownership. Notwithstanding its achievements, experience has shown that Directive (EU) 2015/849 should be further improved to adequately mitigate risks and to effectively detect criminal attempts to misuse the Union financial system for criminal purposes.

(1) Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council 22 constitutes the main legal instrument for the prevention of the use of the Union financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing. That Directive sets out a comprehensive legal framework, which Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and the Council 23 further strengthened by addressing emerging risks and increasing transparency of beneficial ownership. Notwithstanding its achievements, experience has shown that Directive (EU) 2015/849 should be further improved to adequately mitigate risks and to effectively detect criminal attempts to misuse the Union financial system for criminal purposes and to further the integrity of the internal market.

__________________

__________________

22 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).

22 Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).

23 Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 43).

23 Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 43).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) Specific money laundering and terrorist financing threats, risks and vulnerabilities affecting certain economic sectors at national level diminish in distinct manners Member States ability to contribute to the integrity and soundness of the Union financial system. As such, it is appropriate to allow Member States, upon identification of such sectors and specific risks to decide to apply AML/CFT requirements to additional sectors than those covered by Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation]. With a view to preserving the effectiveness of the internal market and the Union AML/CFT system, the Commission should be able, with the support of AMLA, to assess whether the intended decisions of the Member States to apply AML/CFT requirements to additional sectors are justified. In cases where the best interests of the Union would be achieved at Union level as regards specific sectors, the Commission should inform that Member State that it intends to take action at Union level instead and the Member State should abstain from taking the intended national measures.

(6) Specific money laundering and terrorist financing threats, risks and vulnerabilities affecting certain economic sectors at national level diminish in distinct manners Member States ability to contribute to the integrity and soundness of the Union financial system. As such, it is appropriate to allow Member States, upon identification of such sectors and specific risks to apply AML/CFT requirements to additional sectors than those covered by Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation]. With a view to preserving the effectiveness of the internal market and the Union AML/CFT system, the Commission should be able, with the support of AMLA, to assess whether the decisions of the Member States to apply AML/CFT requirements to additional sectors are justified. In cases where the best interests of the Union would be achieved at Union level as regards specific sectors, the Commission should inform that Member State that it intends to take action at Union level instead and the Member State should abstain from taking the intended national measures.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6a) With a view to protecting the Union’s financial system it is essential that applicants entering into regulated professions that are obliged entities have  a good understanding of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing in their sector of activity. Therefore, Member States should ensure that licensing procedures and entry requirements under national law to regulated professions that are obliged entities as referred to in Regulation ... [please insert reference to Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)] require applicants to demonstrate a good understanding of the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing in their sector of activity. AML/CFT training, provided either by obliged entities or by supervisors, should be accessible to such applicants.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) In light of the specific anti-money laundering vulnerabilities that have been witnessed in the electronic money issuing, the payment services and the crypto-assets service providing industry, it should be possible for Member States to require that those providers established on their territory in forms other than a branch and the head office of which is situated in another Member State appoint a central contact point. Such a central contact point, acting on behalf of the appointing institution, should ensure the establishments' compliance with AML/CFT rules.

(7) In light of anti-money laundering vulnerabilities related to the electronic money issuing, the payment services and the crypto-assets service providing industry, it should be possible for Member States to require that those providers established on their territory in forms other than a branch and the head office of which is situated in another Member State appoint a central contact point. Such a central contact point, acting on behalf of the appointing institution, should ensure the establishments' compliance with AML/CFT rules.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) Supervisors should ensure that, with regard to currency exchange offices, cheque cashing offices, trust or company service providers or gambling service providers, the persons who effectively manage the business of such entities and the beneficial owners of such entities act with honesty and integrity and possess knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions. The criteria for determining whether or not a person complies with those requirements should, as a minimum, reflect the need to protect such entities from being misused by their managers or beneficial owners for criminal purposes.

(8) Supervisors should ensure that, with regard to currency exchange offices, cheque cashing offices, trust or company service providers or gambling service providers, the persons who effectively manage the business of such entities and the beneficial owners of such entities are of good repute and act with honesty, good faith and integrity and possess proven knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions. The criteria for determining whether or not a person complies with those requirements should, as a minimum, reflect the need to protect such entities from being misused by their managers or beneficial owners for criminal purposes. AMLA should issue guidelines for the purposes of fostering a common understanding of the elements which supervisors are to take into account in order to determine whether senior management is of good repute, acts with honesty and integrity and possesses the necessary knowledge and expertise.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8a) Member States should ensure that estate agents as referred to in Regulation [please insert reference to Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)] develop or have in place training programmes for professionals. Such training programmes could be facilitated or provided by professional associations representing agents and the real estate sector. The nature and extent of training should be tailored to the scale and complexity of the business and be appropriate to the level of the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing faced by the obliged entity.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) The Commission is well placed to review specific cross-border threats that could affect the internal market and that cannot be identified and effectively combatted by individual Member States. It should therefore be entrusted with the responsibility for coordinating the assessment of risks relating to cross-border activities. Involvement of the relevant experts, such as the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and the representatives from the FIUs, as well as, where appropriate, from other Union-level bodies, is essential for the effectiveness of the process of the assessment of risks. National risk assessments and experience are also an important source of information for that process. Such assessment of the cross-border risks by the Commission should not involve the processing of personal data. In any event, data should be fully anonymised. National and Union data protection supervisory authorities should be involved only if the assessment of the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing has an impact on the privacy and data protection of individuals.

(10) The Commission is well placed to review specific cross-border threats that could affect the internal market and that cannot be identified and effectively combatted by individual Member States. It should therefore be entrusted with the responsibility for coordinating the assessment of risks relating to cross-border activities. Involvement of the relevant experts, such as the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and the representatives from the FIUs, as well as, where appropriate, from other Union-level bodies, is essential for the effectiveness of the process of the assessment of risks. Ongoing national risk assessments and experience are also an important source of information for that process. Such assessment of the cross-border risks by the Commission should not involve the processing of personal data. In any event, data should be fully anonymised. National and Union data protection supervisory authorities should be involved only if the assessment of the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing has an impact on the privacy and data protection of individuals.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) The Member States remain the best placed to identify, assess, understand and decide how to mitigate risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting them directly. Therefore, each Member State should take the appropriate steps in an effort to properly identity, assess and understand its money laundering and terrorist financing risks, as well as risks of non-implementation and evasion of targeted financial sanctions and to define a coherent national strategy to put in place actions to mitigate those risks. Such national risk assessment should be updated regularly and should include a description of the institutional structure and broad procedures of the Member State's AML/CFT regime, as well as the allocated human and financial resources to the extent that this information is available.

(12) Member States remain the best placed to identify, assess, understand and decide how to mitigate risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, and how to fight money laundering and terrorist financing affecting them directly. Therefore, each Member State should take the appropriate steps to properly identify, assess and understand its money laundering and terrorist financing risks on an ongoing basis, as well as risks of non-implementation and evasion of targeted financial sanctions and to define a coherent national strategy to put in place actions to mitigate those risks. Such national risk assessment should be updated regularly and should include a description of the institutional structure and broad procedures of the Member State's AML/CFT regime, as well as the allocated human and financial resources. National risk assessments should be kept up to date and should be reviewed at least every three years. Based on the identification of country-specific risks and for justified reason, the Commission should be able to require that Member States review their risk assessment earlier in order to reduce the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing in the Union..

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12a) Member States should make a summary of the results of their risk assessment publicly available. Such a summary should not contain classified information. The information contained in such a summary should not name any natural or legal person. In specific circumstances, Member States might need to refer to prominent money laundering cases, relevant information from leaks or other major suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing that were widely reported in the media. It is accepted that in such cases it might not be possible to avoid the identification of certain natural or legal persons or that their identity can be inferred from the factual information.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) The results of risk assessments should, where appropriate, be made available to obliged entities in a timely manner to enable them to identify, understand, manage and mitigate their own risks.

(13) The results of risk assessments should, be made available to obliged entities in a timely and appropriate manner to enable them to identify, understand, manage and mitigate their own risks.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) In addition, to identify, understand, manage and mitigate risks at Union level to an even greater degree, Member States should make available the results of their risk assessments to each other, to the Commission and to AMLA.

(14) In addition, to identify, understand, manage and mitigate risks at Union level to an even greater degree, Member States should make available the results of their risk assessments to each other, to the Commission and to AMLA. In order to respect privacy and protect personal data, the results of risk assessments should only be made available to the extent that the data provided is the minimum level of data necessary for the carrying out of AML/CFT duties.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) To be able to review the effectiveness of their systems for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, Member States should maintain, and improve the quality of, relevant statistics. With a view to enhancing the quality and consistency of the statistical data collected at Union level, the Commission and the AMLA should keep track of the Union-wide situation with respect to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and should publish regular overviews.

(15) To be able to review the effectiveness of their systems for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, Member States should maintain, and improve the quality of, relevant statistics. With a view to enhancing the quality and consistency of the statistical data collected at Union level, the Commission and the AMLA should keep track of the Union-wide situation with respect to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and should publish regular overviews. The Commission should adopt implementing acts laying down the methodology for the collection of statistics and the arrangements for transmission of such statistics to the Commission and AMLA.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) The FATF has developed standards for jurisdictions to identify, and assess the risks of potential non-implementation or evasion of the proliferation financing-related targeted financial sanctions, and to take action to mitigate those risks. Those new standards introduced by the FATF do not substitute nor undermine the existing strict requirements for countries to implement targeted financial sanctions to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council Regulations relating to the prevention, suppression and disruption of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its financing. Those existing obligations, as implemented at Union level by Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP26 and (CFSP) 2016/84927 as well as Council Regulations (EU) 267/201228 and (EU) 2017/150929 , remain strict rule-based obligations binding on all natural and legal persons within the Union.

(16) The FATF has developed standards for jurisdictions to identify, and assess the risks of potential non-implementation or evasion of the targeted financial sanctions, and to take action to mitigate those risks. Those new standards introduced by the FATF do not substitute nor undermine the existing strict requirements for countries to implement targeted financial sanctions to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council Regulations relating to the prevention, suppression and disruption of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its financing. Those existing obligations, as implemented at Union level by Council Decisions 2010/413/CFSP26 and (CFSP) 2016/84927 as well as Council Regulations (EU) 267/201228 and (EU) 2017/150929 remain strict rule-based obligations binding on all natural and legal persons within the Union. Strict rule-based obligations should also apply with regard to terrorism and terrorism financing-related sanctions and other targeted financial sanctions adopted by the Union.

__________________

__________________

26 2010/413/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39).

26 2010/413/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39).

27 Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Decision 2013/183/CFSP (OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79).

27 Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 of 27 May 2016 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Decision 2013/183/CFSP (OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79).

28 Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1).

28 Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1).

29 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1).

29 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 of 30 August 2017 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and repealing Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) In order to reflect the latest developments at international level, a requirement has been introduced by this Directive to identify, understand, manage and mitigate risks of potential non-implementation or evasion of proliferation financing-related targeted financial sanctions at Union level and at Member State level.

(17) In order to reflect the latest developments at international level and ensure a comprehensive framework for implementing targeted financial sanctions, multiple requirements have been introduced by this Directive to prevent, identify, understand, manage and mitigate risks of potential non-implementation or evasion of financial sanctions at Union level and at Member State level.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Central registers of beneficial ownership information are crucial in combating the misuse of legal entities. To ensure that the registers of beneficial ownership information are easily accessible and contain high-quality data, consistent rules on the collection and storing of this information should be introduced.

(18) Central registers of beneficial ownership information are crucial in combating the misuse of legal entities. Therefore, Member States should ensure that the beneficial ownership information of legal entities and legal arrangements, information on nominee arrangements and information on foreign legal entities and foreign legal arrangements are held in a central register. To ensure that the registers of beneficial ownership information are easily accessible and contain high-quality data, consistent rules on the collection and storing of this information should be introduced. Central registers should be accessible in a readily usable and machine readable format.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) With a view to enhancing transparency in order to combat the misuse of legal entities, Member States should ensure that beneficial ownership information is stored in a central register located outside the company, in full compliance with Union law. Member States can, for that purpose, use a central database, which collects beneficial ownership information, or the business register, or another central register. Member States may decide that obliged entities are responsible for filling in the register. Member States should make sure that in all cases that information is made available to competent authorities and FIUs and is provided to obliged entities when they take customer due diligence measures.

(19) With a view to enhancing transparency in order to combat the misuse of legal entities, Member States should ensure that beneficial ownership information is stored in a central register located outside the company, in full compliance with Union law. Member States should, for that purpose, use a central database, which collects beneficial ownership information, or the business register, or another central register. Member States may decide that obliged entities are responsible for filling in the register. Member States should make sure that in all cases that information is made available to competent authorities and FIUs and is provided to obliged entities when they take customer due diligence measures.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Beneficial ownership information of trusts and similar legal arrangements should be registered where the trustees and persons holding equivalent positions in similar legal arrangements are established or where they reside. In order to ensure the effective monitoring and registration of information on the beneficial ownership of trusts and similar legal arrangements, cooperation between Member States is also necessary. The interconnection of Member States’ registries of beneficial owners of trusts and similar legal arrangements would make this information accessible, and would also ensure that the multiple registration of the same trusts and similar legal arrangements is avoided within the Union.

(20) Beneficial ownership information of trusts and similar legal arrangements should be registered where the trustees and persons holding equivalent positions in similar legal arrangements are established or where they reside. In order to ensure the effective monitoring and registration of information on the beneficial ownership of trusts and similar legal arrangements, cooperation between Member States is also necessary. The interconnection of Member States’ registries of beneficial owners of trusts and similar legal arrangements should make this information accessible, and should also ensure that the multiple registration of the same trusts and similar legal arrangements is avoided within the Union.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) The accuracy of data included in the beneficial ownership registers is fundamental for all of the relevant authorities and other persons allowed access to that data, and to make valid, lawful decisions based on that data. Therefore, where sufficient reasons arise, after careful analysis by the registrars, to doubt the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information held by the registers, legal entities and legal arrangements should be required to provide additional information on a risk-sensitive basis. In addition, it is important that Member States entrust the entity in charge of managing the registers with sufficient powers to verify beneficial ownership and the veracity of information provided to it, and to report any suspicion to their FIU. Such powers should extend to the conduct of inspections at the premises of the legal entities.

(22) The accuracy of data included in the beneficial ownership registers is fundamental for all of the relevant authorities and other persons allowed access to that data, and to make valid, lawful decisions based on that data. Therefore, Member States should ensure that entities in charge of the central registers verify, at the time of submission of the beneficial ownership information and on a regular basis thereafter, that that the information submitted is adequate, accurate and up to date. Member States should ensure that entities in charge of central registers have at their disposal state-of-the-art technology to carry out automated verifications in a manner that safeguards fundamental rights and avoids discriminatory outcomes. Furthermore, where sufficient reasons arise, after careful analysis by the registrars, to doubt the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information held by the registers, legal entities and legal arrangements should be required to provide additional information on a risk-sensitive basis. In addition, it is important that Member States entrust the entity in charge of managing the registers with sufficient powers and resources to verify beneficial ownership and the veracity of information provided to it, and to report any suspicion to their FIU. Such powers should extend to the conduct of inspections at the premises of the legal entities and, where applicable, to obliged entities, in accordance with national law. Similarly, such powers should extend to representatives of foreign legal persons and foreign legal arrangements in the Union, where there are such representatives.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22a) Where a verification carried out at the time of submission of the beneficial ownership information leads an entity in charge of the register to conclude that there are inconsistencies or errors in that information , or where that information otherwise fails to fulfil the necessary requirements, Member States should ensure that such entity is able to withhold and suspend the certification of registration until the beneficial owner information provided is in order. Where the inconsistencies are detected at a later stage, Member States should ensure that the legal consequences attached to the registration cannot follow.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22b) Member States should ensure that, in the event of repeated failure to provide up-to-date, accurate and adequate information to the authorities in charge of the central registers, the relevant national authorities impose appropriate sanctions. Such sanctions should be able to  include restrictions in the access to certain professions and in the exercise of certain functions within a corporate, legal entity or legal arrangement, restrictions in the establishment of a business relationship with an obliged entities, in the exercise of ownership rights of a corporate and legal entity or in the ability to receive dividends, and suspension or discontinuation of activities. The entity in charge of registers should notify the national authorities competent for imposing appropriate sanctions of the repeated failures. In the event of repeated failures to provide up-to-date, accurate and adequate information, sanctions should be increased to the level necessary to ensure compliance.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22c) Entities in charge of central registers should be operationally independent and autonomous and have the authority and capacity to carry out their functions free of political, governmental or industry influence or interference. Staff of such entities should be of high integrity and appropriately skilled and maintain high professional standards. Employees or managers of the central register who report breaches of the requirements under this Directive should be legally protected from being exposed to threats, retaliatory or hostile action and, in particular, adverse or discriminatory employment actions in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a.

__________________

1a Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22d) Peer reviews are an effective instrument to ensure that registers established in Member States fulfil the requirements of this Directive and to identify best practices and shortcomings. AMLA should therefore have a role in conducting peer reviews of some or all of the activities of the entities in charge of the central beneficial ownership registers with the purpose of assessing whether those entities have mechanisms to fulfil the requirements of this Directive and effectively check whether the beneficial ownership information held in those register is accurate, adequate and up to date.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22e) Beneficial ownership registers are well placed to identify, in a rapid and efficient manner, the individuals who ultimately own or control legal entities and arrangements, including individuals designated in relation to targeted financial sanctions. Timely detection of such ownership structures contributes to improving the understanding of the exposure to risks of evasion of targeted financial sanctions, and to the adoption of mitigating measures to reduce such risks. It is therefore important that such registers be required to screen the beneficial ownership information they hold against designations in relation to targeted financial sanctions, both immediately upon such designation and regularly thereafter, in order to detect whether changes in the ownership or control structure of the legal entity or arrangement are conducive to risks of evasion of targeted financial sanctions. Entities in charge of beneficial ownership registers should promptly share such findings with competent authorities, including FIUs and AML/CFT supervisors, for the purposes of ensuring compliance with targeted financial sanctions.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) In view of ensuring that the mechanism of discrepancy reporting is proportionate and focused on the detection of instances of inaccurate beneficial ownership information, Member States may allow obliged entities to request the customer to rectify discrepancies of a technical nature directly with the entity in charge of the central registers. Such option only applies to low-risk customers and to those errors of a technical nature, such as minor cases of misspelt information, where it is evident that that those do not hinder the identification of the beneficial owner(s) and the accuracy of the information.

(24) In view of ensuring that the mechanism of discrepancy reporting is proportionate and focused on the detection of instances of inaccurate beneficial ownership information, Member States should allow obliged entities to request the customer to rectify discrepancies of a technical nature directly with the entity in charge of the central registers. Such option only applies to low-risk customers and to those errors of a technical nature, such as minor cases of misspelt information, where it is evident that that those do not hinder the identification of the beneficial owner(s) and the accuracy of the information.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27a) FIUs, other competent authorities, self-regulatory bodies and obliged entities should have prompt, unrestricted and free access to information on beneficial ownership through the European Central Platform for the purposes of combating money laundering and terrorism financing and carrying out due diligence.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) Public access to beneficial ownership information can allow greater scrutiny of information by civil society, including by the press or civil society organisations, and contributes to preserving trust in the integrity of the financial system. It can contribute to combating the misuse of corporate and other legal entities and legal arrangements for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, both by helping investigations and through reputational effects, given that anyone who could enter into a business relationship is aware of the identity of the beneficial owners. It may also facilitate the timely and efficient availability of information for obliged entities as well as authorities of third countries involved in combating such offences. The access to that information would also help investigations on money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing.

(28) Registers of beneficial ownership are important tools for advancing the fight against money laundering and terrorism financing, and corruption, tax abuse and other predicate offences. The access to that information also helps investigations on money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) Confidence in financial markets from investors and the general public depends in large part on the existence of an accurate disclosure regime that provides transparency in the beneficial ownership and control structures of companies. This is particularly true for corporate governance systems that are characterised by concentrated ownership, such as the one in the Union. On the one hand, large investors with significant voting and cash-flow rights may encourage long-term growth and firm performance. On the other hand, however, controlling beneficial owners with large voting blocks may have incentives to divert corporate assets and opportunities for personal gain at the expense of minority investors. The potential increase in confidence in financial markets should be regarded as a positive side effect and not the purpose of increasing transparency, which is to create an environment less likely to be used for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing.

deleted

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) Confidence in financial markets from investors and the general public depends in large part on the existence of an accurate disclosure regime that provides transparency in the beneficial ownership and control structures of corporate and other legal entities as well as certain types of trusts and similar legal arrangements. Member States should therefore allow access to beneficial ownership information in a sufficiently coherent and coordinated way, by establishing confidence rules of access by the public, so that third parties are able to ascertain, throughout the Union, who are the beneficial owners of corporate and other legal entities as well as, provided that there is a legitimate interest, of certain types of trusts and similar legal arrangements.

(30) In its judgment of 22 November 2022 in Case C-37/2011a, the Court of Justice ruled that persons connected with the prevention and combating of money laundering and terrorist financing are considered as having a legitimate interest in accessing the information on beneficial owners. Notably, the Court identified several categories of persons as having a legitimate interest in accessing such information, namely persons acting for the purpose of journalism, reporting or other form of expression in the media that are connected with the prevention and combating of money laundering, any of its associated predicate offences or terrorist financing; civil society organisations that are connected with the prevention and combating of money laundering, any of its associated predicate offences or terrorist financing; persons who are likely to enter into transactions or business relationship with a corporate, legal entity or legal arrangements; and financial institutions and authorities in so far as they are involved in the prevention and combat of money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing and do not already have access pursuant to Article 11 of this Directive. Therefore, this Directive aims at defining a minimum and non-exhaustive list of persons that have a legitimate interest in accessing information on beneficial owners. Other categories of persons could also claim a legitimate interest based on grounds other than those listed in this Directive. While fully respecting the applicable case law of the Court of Justice, this Directive should be without prejudice to any Union or national law that provide for broader access to specific beneficial information on the basis of different objectives of general interest or rights to information.For the purpose of assessing whether persons acting for the purpose of journalism, reporting or any other form of expression in the media have a legitimate interest, the concept of media should be interpreted broadly, to include any means of providing content accessible to the public, in order to inform, entertain or educate, regardless of whether there is editorial responsibility of a traditional media service provider or not. Similarly, civil society organisations should include all forms of non-governmental organisations established under the law of a Member State or a third country, as well as local, national or international grassroots organisations and citizen associations which are not managed by state authorities.Determinations of legitimate interest should apply without any discrimination based on nationality, country of residence or country of establishment of the person making a request, including on the means of authentication.

__________________

1a Judgment of the Court of 22 November 2022, Luxembourg Business Registers, C-37/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:912, paragraph 74,

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) With regard to corporate and other legal entities, a fair balance should be sought in particular between the general public interest in the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing and the data subjects’ fundamental rights. The set of data to be made available to the public should be limited, clearly and exhaustively defined, and should be of a general nature, so as to minimise the potential prejudice to the beneficial owners. At the same time, information made accessible to the public should not significantly differ from the data currently collected. In order to limit the interference with the right to respect for their private life in general and to protection of their personal data in particular, that information should relate essentially to the status of beneficial owners of corporate and other legal entities and should strictly concern the sphere of economic activity in which the beneficial owners operate. In cases where the senior managing official has been identified as the beneficial owner only ex officio and not through ownership interest held or control exercised by other means, this should be clearly visible in the registers.

(31) With regard to corporate, legal entities and legal arrangements, a fair balance should be sought in particular between the general public interest in the prevention of money laundering, its predicate offences and terrorist financing and the data subjects’ fundamental rights. The set of data to be made available to the persons having a legitimate interest should be limited, clearly and exhaustively defined, and should be of a general nature, so as to minimise the potential prejudice to the beneficial owners. At the same time, information made accessible to the persons having a legitimate interest should not significantly differ from the data currently collected. In order to limit the interference with the right to respect for their private life in general and to protection of their personal data in particular, that information should relate essentially to the status of beneficial owners of corporate, legal entities and legal arrangements and should strictly concern the sphere of economic activity in which the beneficial owners operate. In cases where the senior managing official has been identified as the beneficial owner only ex officio and not through ownership interest held or control exercised by other means, this should be clearly visible in the registers.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) In case of express trusts and similar legal arrangements, the information should be accessible to any member of the general public, provided that the legitimate interest can be demonstrated. This should include situations where natural or legal persons file a request in relation to a trust or similar legal arrangement which holds or owns a controlling interest in a legal entity incorporated or created outside the Union through direct or indirect ownership, including through bearer shareholding, or through control via other means. The interpretation of the legitimate interest by the Member States should not restrict the concept of legitimate interest to cases of pending administrative or legal proceedings, and should enable to take into account the preventive work in the field of anti-money laundering and its predicate offences and counter-terrorist financing undertaken by non-governmental organisations and investigative journalists. While trusts and other legal arrangements can be used in complex corporate structures, their primary objective remains the management of individual wealth. In order to adequately balance the legitimate aim of preventing the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, which public scrutiny enhances, and the protection of fundamental rights of individuals, in particular the right to privacy and protection of personal data, it is necessary to provide for the demonstration of a legitimate interest in accessing beneficial ownership information of trusts and other legal arrangements.

deleted

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) In order to ensure that the information available to the public allows the correct identification of the beneficial owner, a minimum set of data should be accessible to the public. Such data should allow for the unequivocal identification of the beneficial owner, whilst minimising the amount of personal data publicly accessible. In the absence of information pertaining to the name, the month and year of birth and the country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner, it would not be possible to establish unambiguously who the natural person being the beneficial owner is. Similarly, the absence of information on the beneficial interest held would make it impossible to determine why that natural person should be identified as being the beneficial owner. Therefore, in order to avoid misinterpretations of the beneficial ownership information publicly available and to ensure a proportionate disclosure of personal data consistent across the Union, it is appropriate to lay down the minimum set of data that can be accessed by the public.

(33) In order to ensure that the information available to persons having a legitimate interest allows the correct identification of the beneficial owner, a minimum set of data should be accessible to persons having a legitimate interest. Such data should allow for the unequivocal identification of the beneficial owner, whilst minimising the amount of personal data accessible. In the absence of information pertaining to the name, the month and year of birth and the country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner, it would not be possible to establish unambiguously who the natural person being the beneficial owner is. Similarly, the absence of information on the nature and extent of beneficial interest held, including information on ownership and control chain, as well as the date somebody became a beneficial owner, would make it impossible to determine why that natural person should be identified as being the beneficial owner at a given moment. Therefore, in order to avoid misinterpretations of the beneficial ownership information available and to ensure a proportionate disclosure of personal data consistent across the Union, it is appropriate to lay down the set of data that can be accessed by persons having a legitimate interest.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34) The enhanced public scrutiny may contribute to preventing the misuse of legal entities and legal arrangements, including tax avoidance. Therefore, it is essential that the information on beneficial ownership remains available through the national registers and through the system of interconnection of beneficial ownership registers for a minimum of five years after the grounds for registering beneficial ownership information of the trust or similar legal arrangement have ceased to exist. However, Member States should be able to provide by law for the processing of the information on beneficial ownership, including personal data for other purposes if such processing meets an objective of public interest and constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to the legitimate aim pursued.

(34) Competent authorities, obliged entities and persons having a legitimate interest need to access information on the beneficial owners of corporate, legal entities and legal arrangements that have been struck off from registers. This is due to the fact that investigations, monitoring, analysis or research need sufficient time to detect, uncover and identify facts related to money laundering and terrorist financing cases. Money laundering schemes often involve corporate entities, legal entities and legal arrangements which are created for a short period to limit traceability. An immediate deletion of the data would create a loophole whereby criminals would strike off related corporate entities, legal entities or legal arrangements for the purpose of removing any trace of them for competent authorities, obliged entities and persons having a legitimate interest. Therefore, it is essential that the information on beneficial ownership remains available through the national registers and through the system of interconnection of beneficial ownership registers for a minimum of five years and up to ten years after the grounds for registering beneficial ownership information of the trust or similar legal arrangement have ceased to exist. Without prejudice to national law on evidence applicable to ongoing criminal investigations and legal proceedings, Member States should be able to allow or require the retention of such information or documents in concrete cases for a further maximum period  of five years where the necessity and proportionality of such further retention have been established for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of suspected money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing. Member States should be able to provide by law for the processing of the information on beneficial ownership, including personal data for other purposes if such processing meets an objective of public interest and constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to the legitimate aim pursued.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35) Moreover, with the aim of ensuring a proportionate and balanced approach and to guarantee the rights to private life and personal data protection, it should be possible for Member States to provide for exemptions to the disclosure of the personal information on the beneficial owner through the registers of beneficial ownership information and to access to such information, in exceptional circumstances, where that information would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, harassment, violence or intimidation. It should also be possible for Member States to require online registration in order to identify any person who requests information from the register, as well as the payment of a fee for access to the information in the register.

(35) Moreover, with the aim of ensuring a proportionate and balanced approach and to guarantee the rights to private life and personal data protection, Member States should provide for exemptions to the disclosure of the personal information on the beneficial owner through the registers of beneficial ownership information and to access to such information, in exceptional circumstances, where that information would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, harassment, violence or intimidation. Such exemptions should be granted by competent authorities on a case-by-case basis and upon a detailed analysis of the nature of the exceptional circumstances in each case. It should also be possible for Member States to require online registration in order to identify any person who requests information from the register, as well as the payment of a proportionate and adequate fee for access to the information in the register, which should not exceed the direct costs of requesting or making the information available. Where the access to the register is provided online through electronic means, Member States should not require the payment of any fees since it is assumed that there is no direct cost of making the information available.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35a) Currently, certain Member States require online registration in order to be able to identify any person who requests information from the register of beneficial ownership information, and the payment of a fee to obtain information from the register. Identification of users can be a legitimate requirement but it should not lead to discrimination based on their country of residence or nationality. Furthermore, requirements linked to registration or to fees can impede access to registers of beneficial ownership information. It is essential that Member States ensure access to beneficial ownership information without any restrictions based on geographical location or nationality.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36) Directive (EU) 2018/843 achieved the interconnection of Member States’ central registers holding beneficial ownership information through the European Central Platform established by Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council30 . Continued involvement of Member States in the functioning of the whole system should be ensured by means of a regular dialogue between the Commission and the representatives of Member States on the issues concerning the operation of the system and on its future development.

(36) Directive (EU) 2018/843 achieved the interconnection of Member States’ central registers holding beneficial ownership information through the European Central Platform established by Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council30. It is essential that the European Central Platform serve as a central search service, making available all information related to beneficial ownership to competent authorities, self-regulatory bodies, obliged entities and persons having a legitimate interest. Continued involvement of Member States in the functioning of the whole system should be ensured by means of a regular dialogue between the Commission and the representatives of Member States on the issues concerning the operation of the system and on its future development. The European Parliament should be informed about the evolution of this dialogue.

__________________

__________________

30 Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ L 169, 30.6.2017, p. 46).

30 Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ L 169, 30.6.2017, p. 46).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council31 applies to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Directive. Natural persons whose personal data are held in national registers as beneficial owners should be informed about the applicable data protection rules. Furthermore, only personal data that is up to date and corresponds to the actual beneficial owners should be made available and the beneficiaries should be informed about their rights under the Union legal data protection framework and the procedures applicable for exercising those rights. In addition, to prevent the abuse of the information contained in the registers and to balance out the rights of beneficial owners, Member States might find it appropriate to consider making information relating to the requesting person along with the legal basis for their request available to the beneficial owner.

(38) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council 31 applies to the processing of personal data for the purposes of this Directive. Natural persons whose personal data are held in national registers as beneficial owners should be informed about the applicable data protection rules. Furthermore, competent authorities, obliged entities and persons having a legitimate interest should be able to access the history of all beneficial owners in a given corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangement in order to identify previous beneficial owners. Such information may be particularly necessary for monitoring, analysis and investigation related to money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing. Only personal data that is up to date and corresponds to the actual beneficial owners at a given moment in time should be made available and the beneficiaries should be informed about their rights under the Union legal data protection framework and the procedures applicable for exercising those rights.

__________________

__________________

31 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

31 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39) Delayed access to information by FIUs and other competent authorities on the identity of holders of bank and payment accounts and safe-deposit boxes, especially anonymous ones, hampers the detection of transfers of funds relating to money laundering and terrorist financing. National data allowing the identification of bank and payments accounts and safe-deposit boxes belonging to one person is fragmented and therefore not accessible to FIUs and to other competent authorities in a timely manner. It is therefore essential to establish centralised automated mechanisms, such as a register or data retrieval system, in all Member States as an efficient means to get timely access to information on the identity of holders of bank and payment accounts and safe-deposit boxes, their proxy holders, and their beneficial owners. When applying the access provisions, it is appropriate for pre-existing mechanisms to be used provided that national FIUs can access the data for which they make inquiries in an immediate and unfiltered manner. Member States should consider feeding such mechanisms with other information deemed necessary and proportionate for the more effective mitigation of risks relating to money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Full confidentiality should be ensured in respect of such inquiries and requests for related information by FIUs and competent authorities other than those authorities responsible for prosecution.

(39) Delayed access to information by FIUs and other competent authorities on the identity of holders of bank, and payment and securities, accounts, custodial crypto-asset wallets and safe-deposit boxes, especially anonymous ones, hampers the detection of transfers of funds relating to money laundering and terrorist financing. National data allowing the identification of bank, and payments and securities, accounts, custodial crypto-asset wallets and safe-deposit boxes belonging to one person is fragmented and therefore not accessible to FIUs and to other competent authorities in a timely manner. It is therefore essential to establish centralised automated mechanisms, such as a register or data retrieval system, in all Member States as an efficient means to get timely access to information on the identity of holders of bank and payment accounts, including virtual bank accounts, securities accounts, custodial crypto-asset wallets and safe-deposit boxes, their proxy holders, and their beneficial owners. Such information should include the historical information on closed customer-account holders, bank, payment and securities accounts, custodial crypto-asset wallets and safe-deposit boxes. When applying the access provisions, it is appropriate for pre-existing mechanisms to be used provided that national FIUs can access the data for which they make inquiries in an immediate and unfiltered manner. Member States should consider feeding such mechanisms with other information deemed necessary and proportionate for the more effective mitigation of risks relating to money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Full confidentiality should be ensured in respect of such inquiries and requests for related information by FIUs and competent authorities.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(40) In order to respect privacy and protect personal data, the minimum data necessary for the carrying out of AML/CFT investigations should be held in centralised automated mechanisms for bank and payment accounts, such as registers or data retrieval systems. It should be possible for Member States to determine which data it is useful and proportionate to gather, taking into account the systems and legal traditions in place to enable the meaningful identification of the beneficial owners. When transposing the provisions relating to those mechanisms, Member States should set out retention periods equivalent to the period for retention of the documentation and information obtained within the application of customer due diligence measures. It should be possible for Member States to extend the retention period on a general basis by law, without requiring case-by-case decisions. The additional retention period should not exceed an additional five years. That period should be without prejudice to national law setting out other data retention requirements allowing case-by-case decisions to facilitate criminal or administrative proceedings. Access to those mechanisms should be on a need-to-know basis.

(40) In order to respect privacy and protect personal data, the minimum data necessary for the carrying out of AML/CFT investigations should be held in centralised automated mechanisms for bank accounts and crypto-asset wallets, such as registers or data retrieval systems. It should be possible for Member States to determine which data it is useful and proportionate to gather, taking into account the systems and legal traditions in place to enable the meaningful identification of the beneficial owners. When transposing the provisions relating to those mechanisms, Member States should set out retention periods equivalent to the period for retention of the documentation and information obtained within the application of customer due diligence measures. It should be possible for Member States to exceptionally extend the retention period, provided good reasons are given. The additional retention period should not exceed an additional five years. That period should be without prejudice to national criminal law on evidence applicable to ongoing criminal investigations and legal proceedings and allow or require the retention of such information or documents in concrete cases for a further maximum period of five years where the necessity and proportionality of such further retention have been established for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of suspected money laundering or terrorist financing. Access to those mechanisms should be on a need-to-know basis.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(41) Through the interconnection of Member States’ centralised automated mechanisms, the national FIUs would be able to obtain swiftly cross-border information on the identity of holders of bank and payment accounts and safe deposit boxes in other Member States, which would reinforce their ability to effectively carry out financial analysis and cooperate with their counterparts from other Member States. Direct cross-border access to information on bank and payment accounts and safe deposit boxes would enable the Financial Intelligence Units to produce financial analysis within a sufficiently short timeframe to detect potential money laundering and terrorist financing cases and guarantee a swift law enforcement action.

(41) Through the interconnection of Member States’ centralised automated mechanisms, the national FIUs and other competent national authorities designated according to Directive (EU) 2019/11531a would be able to obtain swiftly cross-border information on the identity of holders of bank, payment and securities accounts, custodial crypto-asset wallets and safe deposit boxes in other Member States, which would reinforce their ability to effectively carry out financial analysis,  detect, investigate or prosecute criminal offences, and cooperate with their counterparts from other Member States. Direct cross-border access to information on bank, payment and securities accounts, custodial crypto-asset wallets and safe deposit boxes would enable the Financial Intelligence Units to produce financial analysis within a sufficiently short timeframe to detect potential money laundering and terrorist financing cases and guarantee a swift law enforcement action.

__________________

1a Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA, OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 122–137.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(42) In order to respect the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy, and to limit the impact of cross-border access to the information contained in the national centralised automated mechanisms, the scope of information accessible through the bank account registers (BAR) central access point would be restricted to the minimum necessary in accordance with the principle of data minimisation in order to allow the identification of any natural or legal persons holding or controlling payment accounts and bank accounts identified by IBAN and safe-deposit boxes. Furthermore, only FIUs should be granted immediate and unfiltered access to the central access point. Member States should ensure that the FIUs’ staff maintain high professional standards of confidentiality and data protection, that they are of high integrity and are appropriately skilled. Moreover, Member States should put in place technical and organisational measures guaranteeing the security of the data to high technological standards.

(42) In order to respect the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy, and to limit the impact of cross-border access to the information contained in the national centralised automated mechanisms, the scope of information accessible through the bank account registers (BAR) central access point would be restricted to the minimum necessary in accordance with the principle of data minimisation in order to allow the identification of any natural or legal persons holding or controlling payment accounts and bank accounts identified by IBAN, securities accounts, custodial crypto-asset wallets and safe-deposit boxes. FIUs and the other competent authorities designated according to Directive (EU) 2019/1153 should be granted immediate and unfiltered access to the central access point. Member States should ensure that the FIUs’ staff maintain high professional standards of confidentiality and data protection, that they are of high integrity and are appropriately skilled including in detecting biases in and ethical use of big data sets. Moreover, Member States should put in place technical and organisational measures guaranteeing the security of the data to high technological standards.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(44) Real estate is an attractive commodity for criminals to launder the proceeds of their illicit activities, as it allows obscuring the true source of the funds and the identity of the beneficial owner. Proper and timely identification of natural or legal person owning real estate by FIUs and other competent authorities is important both for detecting money laundering schemes as well as for freezing and confiscation of assets. It is therefore important that Member States provide FIUs and competent authorities with access to information which allows the identification in a timely manner of natural or legal person owning real estate and information relevant for the identification of the risk and suspicion of the transaction.

(44) Land and real estate is an attractive commodity for criminals to launder the proceeds of their illicit activities, as it allows obscuring the true source of the funds and the identity of the beneficial owner. Proper and timely identification of natural or legal person owning land and real estate by FIUs and other competent authorities is important both for detecting money laundering schemes as well as for freezing, seizing and confiscation of assets, in particular in the case of targeted financial sanctions. Member States should set-up registers or electronic data retrieval systems to effectively put an end to real estate or land as a means to launder money. It is therefore important that Member States provide FIUs and competent authorities with access to information through a single access point in each Member State, which allows the identification in a timely manner of natural or legal person owning land and real estate, including through registers or electronic data retrieval systems, and information relevant for the identification of the beneficial owner, as well as timely access to the information relevant for the identification of the risk and suspicion of the transaction. Such data should be interconnected via the European real estate data single access point (E-RED) to be developed and operated by the Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(44a) Certain goods registered under national law can be attractive commodities for criminals to launder the proceeds of their illicit activities. Member States should provide for systems to aggregate information on ownership of such goods, for example watercrafts and aircrafts. Member States should also consider aggregating, through registers or other systems, information on ownership of certain other goods of high value, particularly insured goods. Proper and timely identification of natural persons who are beneficial owners of those goods by FIUs and other competent authorities is important both for detecting money laundering schemes and for freezing assets. It is therefore important for Member States to provide FIUs and competent authorities with access to information which allows the identification in a timely manner of natural persons owning certain goods directly or via beneficial ownership and to information relevant for the identification of the risk and suspicion of transactions. Given the money laundering and terrorist financing risk posed by goods in freezones, it is similarly important for Member States to ensure that information on certain goods in freezones is available to competent authorities through registers or electronic data retrieval systems on free zones. Those registers or data retrieval system should be interconnected via the free zone goods’ information (FZGI) single access point to be developed and operated by the Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) All Member States have, or should, set up operationally independent and autonomous FIUs to collect and analyse the information which they receive with the aim of establishing links between suspicious transactions and underlying criminal activity in order to prevent and combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The FIU should be the single central national unit responsible for the receipt and analysis of suspicious transaction reports, reports on cross-border physical movements of cash and on payments in cash above a certain threshold as well as other information relevant to money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing submitted by obliged entities. Operational independence and autonomy of the FIU should be ensured by granting the FIU the authority and capacity to carry out its functions freely, including the ability to take autonomous decisions as regards analysis, requests and dissemination of specific information. In all cases, the FIU should have the independent right to forward or disseminate information to competent authorities. The FIU should be provided with adequate financial, human and technical resources, in a manner that secures its autonomy and independence and enables it to exercise its mandate effectively. The FIU should be able to obtain and deploy the resources needed to carry out its functions, on an individual or routine basis, free from any undue political, government or industry influence or interference, which might compromise its operational independence.

(45) All Member States have, or should, set up operationally independent and autonomous FIUs to collect and analyse the information which they receive with the aim of establishing links between suspicious transactions and underlying criminal activity in order to prevent and combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The FIU should be the single central national unit responsible for the receipt and analysis of suspicious transaction reports, reports on cross-border physical movements of cash through the customs information system and on payments in cash above a certain threshold as well as other information relevant to money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing submitted by obliged entities. Operational independence and autonomy of the FIU should be ensured by granting the FIU the authority and capacity to carry out its functions freely, including the ability to take autonomous decisions as regards analysis, requests and dissemination of specific information. In all cases, the FIU should have the independent right to forward or disseminate information to competent authorities. The FIU should be provided with adequate financial, human and technical resources, in a manner that secures its autonomy and independence and enables it to exercise its mandate effectively. The FIU should be able to obtain and deploy the resources needed to carry out its functions, on an individual or routine basis, free from any undue political, government or industry influence or interference, which might compromise its operational independence. In order to assess the fulfilment of those requirements and identify weaknesses and best practices, AMLA should be empowered to coordinate the organisation of peer reviews of FIUs.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45a) FIU staff should be of high integrity and appropriately skilled, including in detecting biases in, and in the ethical use of, big data sets, and maintain high professional standards. FIU staff should not be in a situation where a conflict of interest exists or could be perceived to exist. AMLA should adopt guidelines to address situations of conflict of interest.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46) FIUs play an important role in identifying the financial operations of terrorist networks, especially cross-border, and in detecting their financial backers. Financial intelligence might be of fundamental importance in uncovering the facilitation of terrorist offences and the networks and schemes of terrorist organisations. FIUs maintain significant differences as regards their functions, competences and powers. The current differences should however not affect an FIU’s activity, particularly its capacity to develop preventive analyses in support of all the authorities in charge of intelligence, investigative and judicial activities, and international cooperation. In the exercise of their tasks, it has become essential to identify the minimum set of data FIUs should have swift access to and be able to exchange without impediments with their counterparts from other Member States. In all cases of suspected money laundering, its predicate offences and in cases involving the financing of terrorism, information should flow directly and quickly without undue delays. It is therefore essential to further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of FIUs, by clarifying the powers of and cooperation between FIUs.

(46) FIUs play an important role in identifying the financial operations of terrorist networks, especially cross-border, and in detecting their financial backers. Financial intelligence might be of fundamental importance in uncovering the facilitation of terrorist offences and the networks and schemes of terrorist organisations. FIUs maintain significant differences as regards their functions, competences and powers. The current differences should however not affect an FIU’s activity, particularly its capacity to develop preventive analyses in support of all the authorities in charge of intelligence, investigative and judicial activities, and international cooperation. In the exercise of their tasks, it has become essential to identify the minimum set of data FIUs should have swift access to and be able to exchange without impediments with their counterparts from other Member States. In all cases of suspected money laundering, its predicate offences and in cases involving the financing of terrorism, information should flow directly and quickly without undue delays. It is therefore essential to further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of FIUs, by clarifying the powers of and cooperation between FIUs. FIUs should cooperate with each other to the greatest extent possible. An FIU should be able to refuse to exchange information with another FIU only in exceptional circumstances where the exchange could be contrary to fundamental principles of national law. Such exceptional circumstances should be specified in a way which prevents the misuse of, and undue limitations on, the free exchange of information for analytical purposes.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) The powers of FIUs include the right to access directly or indirectly the ‘financial’, ‘administrative’ and ‘law enforcement’ information that they require in order to combat money laundering, its associated predicate offences and terrorist financing. The lack of definition of what types of information these general categories include has resulted in FIUs having been granted with access to considerably diversified sets of information which has an impact on FIUs’ analytical functions as well as on their capacity to cooperate effectively with their counterparts from other Member States. It is therefore necessary to define the minimum sets of ‘financial’, ‘administrative’ and ‘law enforcement’ information that should be made directly or indirectly available to every FIU across the Union. Moreover, FIUs should be able to obtain swiftly from any obliged entity all necessary information relating to their functions. An FIU should also be able to obtain such information upon request made by another FIU and to exchange that information with the requesting FIU.

(47) The powers of FIUs include the right to access directly or indirectly the ‘financial’, ‘administrative’ and ‘law enforcement’ information that they require in order to combat money laundering, its associated predicate offences and terrorist financing. The lack of definition of what types of information these general categories include has resulted in FIUs having been granted with access to considerably diversified sets of information which has an impact on FIUs’ analytical functions as well as on their capacity to cooperate effectively with their counterparts from other Member States. It is therefore necessary to define the minimum sets of ‘financial’, ‘administrative’ and ‘law enforcement’ information that should be made directly or indirectly available to every FIU across the Union. Moreover, FIUs should be able to obtain swiftly from any obliged entity all necessary information relating to their functions. An FIU should also be able to obtain such information upon request made by another FIU and to exchange that information with the requesting FIU in compliance with existing legal provisions, such as Directive (EU) 2019/1153. Access to financial, administrative and law enforcement information by FIUs should be in accordance with the principle of data minimisation.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(48) The vast majority of FIUs have been granted the power to take urgent action and suspend or withhold consent to a transaction in order to analyse it, confirm the suspicion and disseminate the results of the analytical activities to the competent authorities. However, there are certain variations in relation to the duration of the postponement powers across the different Member States, with an impact not only on the postponement of activities that have a cross-border nature through FIU-to-FIU cooperation, but also on individuals’ fundamental rights. Furthermore, in order to ensure that FIUs have the capacity to promptly restrain criminal funds or assets and prevent their dissipation, also for seizure purposes, FIUs should be granted the power to suspend the use of a bank or payment account in order to analyse the transactions performed through the account, confirm the suspicion and disseminate the results of the analysis to the competent authorities. Given that postponement powers have an impact on the right to property, the preservation of affected persons’ fundamental rights should be guaranteed.

(48) The vast majority of FIUs have been granted the power to take urgent action and suspend or prohibit a transaction for a pre-determined period in order to analyse it, confirm the suspicion and disseminate the results of the analytical activities to the competent authorities. However, there are certain variations in relation to the duration of the postponement powers across the different Member States, with an impact not only on the postponement of activities that have a cross-border nature through FIU-to-FIU cooperation, but also on individuals’ fundamental rights. Furthermore, in order to ensure that FIUs have the capacity to promptly restrain criminal funds or assets and prevent their dissipation, also for seizure purposes, FIUs should be granted the power to suspend, for the necessary and adequate period, the use of a bank or payment account in order to analyse the transactions performed through the account, confirm the suspicion and disseminate the results of the analysis to the competent authorities. Given that postponement powers have an impact on the right to property, the preservation of affected persons’ fundamental rights should be guaranteed. Where an FIU decides to suspend or prohibit a transaction or an account that concerns another Member State, it should promptly forward that information to the FIU of that Member State and make it available to other FIUs through FIU.net. Each FIU should appoint a fundamental rights officer from within its own staff to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed at all times.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) For the purposes of greater transparency and accountability and to increase awareness with regard to their activities, FIUs should issue activity reports on an annual basis. These reports should at least provide statistical data in relation to the suspicious transaction reports received, the number of disseminations made to national competent authorities, the number of requests submitted to and received by other FIUs as well as information on trends and typologies identified. This report should be made public except for the elements which contain sensitive and classified information. At least once annually, the FIU should provide obliged entities with feedback on the quality of suspicious transaction reports, their timeliness, the description of suspicion and any additional documents provided. Such feedback can be provided to individual obliged entities or groups of obliged entities and should aim to further improve the obliged entities’ ability to detect and identify suspicious transactions and activities and enhance the overall reporting mechanisms.

(49) For the purposes of greater transparency and accountability and to increase awareness with regard to their activities, FIUs should issue activity reports on an annual basis. These reports should at least provide statistical data in relation to the suspicious transaction reports received, the number of disseminations made to national competent authorities, the number of requests submitted to and received by other FIUs, information on trends and typologies identified and requests submitted to and received from competent authorities, Europol and EPPO. This report should be made public except for the elements which contain sensitive and classified information. At regular intervals, and at at least once annually, the FIU should provide obliged entities with feedback on the quality of suspicious transaction reports, their timeliness, the description of suspicion and any additional documents provided. Such feedback should be provided to individual obliged entities or groups of obliged entities, depending on the sector, and should aim to further improve the obliged entities’ ability to detect and identify suspicious transactions and activities and enhance the overall reporting mechanisms.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50) The purpose of the FIU is to collect and analyse the information which they receive with the aim of establishing links between suspicious transactions and underlying criminal activity in order to prevent and combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and to disseminate the results of its analysis as well as additional information to the competent authorities where there are grounds to suspect money laundering, associated predicate offences or financing of terrorism. An FIU should not refrain from or refuse the exchange of information to another FIU, spontaneously or upon request, for reasons such as a lack of identification of an associated predicate offence, features of criminal national laws and differences between the definitions of associated predicate offences or the absence of a reference to particular associated predicate offences. Similarly, an FIU should grant its prior consent to another FIU to forward the information to other competent authorities regardless of the type of possible associated predicate offence in order to allow the dissemination function to be carried out effectively. FIUs have reported difficulties in exchanging information based on differences in national definitions of certain predicate offences, such as tax crimes, which are not harmonised by Union law. Such differences should not hamper the mutual exchange, the dissemination to other competent authorities and the use of that information. FIUs should rapidly, constructively and effectively ensure the widest range of international cooperation with third countries’ FIUs in relation to money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing in accordance with the applicable data protection rules for data transfers, FATF Recommendations and Egmont Principles for Information Exchange between Financial Intelligence Units.

(50) The purpose of the FIU is to collect and analyse the information which they receive with the aim of establishing links between suspicious transactions and underlying criminal activity in order to prevent and combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and to disseminate the results of its analysis as well as additional information to the competent authorities where there are grounds to suspect money laundering, associated predicate offences or financing of terrorism. An FIU should not refrain from or refuse the exchange of information to another FIU, spontaneously or upon request, for reasons such as a lack of identification of an associated predicate offence, features of criminal national laws and differences between the definitions of associated predicate offences or the absence of a reference to particular associated predicate offences. Similarly, an FIU should grant its prior consent to another FIU to forward the information to other competent authorities regardless of the type of possible associated predicate offence and whether or not the predicate offence has been identified, in order to allow the dissemination function to be carried out effectively. FIUs have reported difficulties in exchanging information based on differences in national definitions of certain predicate offences, such as tax crimes, which are not harmonised by Union law. Such differences should not hamper the mutual exchange, the dissemination to other competent authorities and the use of that information. FIUs should rapidly, constructively and effectively ensure the widest range of international cooperation with third countries’ FIUs in relation to money laundering, associated predicate offences and terrorist financing in accordance with the applicable data protection rules for data transfers, FATF Recommendations and Egmont Principles for Information Exchange between Financial Intelligence Units, while fully respecting data protection and fundamental rights obligations and protecting the rule of law.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50a) For FIUs to carry out their tasks effectively, given the cross-border nature of many transactions, they must cooperate with each other and with competent authorities, including not only law enforcement authorities, but also tax and customs authorities, Europol and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), in a more meaningful and efficient manner. Cooperation with FIUs of third countries is also essential in order to fight money laundering and terrorist financing at the global level and to comply with international AML/CFT standards. Member States should enable, through their legislation, such cooperation and empower their FIUs to enter into effective cooperation arrangements.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50b) In order to ensure appropriate follow up, it is essential that FIUs disseminate the results of their analysis to competent authorities, including information received from other FIUs. Where prior consent to further dissemination is necessary, Member States should ensure that the requested FIU’s prior consent is granted promptly and to the largest extent possible, regardless of the type of predicate offences and whether or not the predicate offence has been identified. Any refusal should be based solely on objective grounds and be grounded on a reasoned justification that such dissemination would fall beyond the scope of application of AML/CFT provisions, could lead to impairing ongoing investigations, or would affect fundamental principles of Union or national law.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50c) When granting consent for the further dissemination of information to competent authorities, the requested FIU should be able to impose restrictions and conditions for the use of that information. The receiving FIU and the competent authorities concerned should comply with the restrictions and conditions set by the requested FIU. For example, a requested FIU might agree that the receiving FIU disseminate the information to competent authorities on the condition that that information can be used for operational and strategic analysis purposes only. In such an event, competent authorities in the receiving Member State should not automatically use the disseminated information as evidence in a judicial proceeding but the competent authorities of that Member State should rather use the applicable judicial cooperation mechanisms to seek information for evidentiary purposes.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(51) FIUs should use secure facilities, including protected channels of communication, to cooperate and exchange information amongst each other. In this respect, a system for the exchange of information between FIUs of the Member States (‘FIU.net’) should be set up. The system should be managed and hosted by AMLA. The FIU.net should be used by FIUs to cooperate and exchange information amongst each other and may also be used, where appropriate, to exchange information with FIUs of third countries and with other authorities and Union bodies. The functionalities of the FIU.net should be used by FIUs to their full potential. Those functionalities should allow FIUs to match their data with data of other FIUs in an anonymous way with the aim of detecting subjects of the FIU's interests in other Member States and identifying their proceeds and funds, whilst ensuring full protection of personal data.

(51) FIUs should use secure facilities, including protected channels of communication by using end-to-end encryption, to cooperate and exchange information amongst each other via the FIU.net and, when available, its one-stop-shop. In this respect, a fully encrypted, safe and secure system for the exchange of information between FIUs of the Member States (‘FIU.net’) should be set up. The system should be managed and hosted by AMLA. The FIU.net should be the only system used by FIUs to cooperate and exchange information amongst each other and may also be used, where appropriate, to exchange information with FIUs of third countries and with other authorities and Union bodies. The functionalities of the FIU.net should be used by FIUs to their full potential. Those functionalities should allow FIUs to match their data with data of other FIUs in an anonymous way, and their subject matter data with the Europol database in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794, with the aim of detecting subjects of the FIU's interests in other Member States and identifying their proceeds and funds, whilst ensuring full protection of personal data.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(51a) Obliged entities should report suspicions of money laundering, its predicate offences and terrorist financing, including attempted transactions, directly to the FIU of the Member State in whose territory the obliged entity in question is established. For that purpose, obliged entities should follow the instructions from their FIU for reporting such suspicion by using protected communication channels. In order to further standardise the reporting of Suspicious Transaction Reports STRs, to reach efficiency gains in FIU operations, and to facilitate the reporting by obliged entities, it is essential to develop a common interface for such reporting based on the FIU.Net system (“FIU.Net one-stop-shop”). AMLA should develop the FIU.Net one-stop-shop reporting interface in order to enable an obliged entity to report directly information to the FIU of the Member State in whose territory the obliged entity transmitting the information is established. Such interface should also allow for the immediate transmission of that information to any other FIU which is concerned by a suspicious transaction report, based on the criteria to be determined through regulatory technical standards. The use of the FIU.Net one-stop-shop should be introduced gradually over time in order to allow a smooth and uninterrupted reporting of suspicion transaction reports and to leave sufficient time for FIUs and obliged entities to implement the necessary technical changes. FIUs should therefore be able to instruct obliged entities to report information via the FIU.Net one-stop-shop five years after this Directive comes into force, and the use of FIU.Net one-stop-shop should be mandatory for obliged entities one year later..

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(52) It is important that FIUs cooperate and exchange information effectively with one another. In this regard, AMLA should provide the necessary assistance, not only by means of coordinating joint analyses of cross-border suspicious transaction reports, but also by developing draft regulatory technical standards concerning the format to be used for the exchange of information between FIUs and guidelines in relation to the relevant factors to be taken into account when determining if a suspicious transaction report concerns another Member State as well as on the nature, features and objectives of operational and of strategic analysis.

(52) It is important that FIUs cooperate and exchange information effectively with one another. In this regard, AMLA should provide the necessary assistance, not only by means of coordinating joint analyses of cross-border suspicious transaction reports, but also by developing draft regulatory technical standards concerning the format to be used for the exchange of information between FIUs and the relevant factors to be taken into account when determining if a suspicious transaction report concerns another Member State as well as guidelines on the nature, features and objectives of operational and of strategic analysis.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(54) The movement of illicit money traverses borders and may affect different Member States. The cross-border cases, involving multiple jurisdictions, are becoming more and more frequent and increasingly significant, also due to the activities carried out by obliged entities on a cross-border basis. In order to deal effectively with cases that concern several Member States, FIUs should be able to go beyond the simple exchange of information for the detection and analysis of suspicious transactions and activities and share the analytical activity itself. FIUs have reported certain important issues which limit or condition the capacity of FIUs to engage in joint analysis. Carrying out joint analysis of suspicious transactions and activities will enable FIUs to exploit potential synergies, to use information from different sources, to obtain a full picture of the anomalous activities and to enrich the analysis. FIUs should be able to conduct joint analyses of suspicious transactions and activities and to set up and participate in joint analysis teams for specific purposes and limited period with the assistance of AMLA. The participation of third parties may be instrumental for the successful outcome of joint analyses. Therefore, FIUs may invite third parties to take part in the joint analysis where such participation would fall within the respective mandates of those third parties.

(54) The movement of illicit money traverses borders and may affect different Member States. The cross-border cases, involving multiple jurisdictions, are becoming more and more frequent and increasingly significant, also due to the activities carried out by obliged entities on a cross-border basis. In order to deal effectively with cases that concern several Member States, FIUs should be able to go beyond the simple exchange of information for the detection and analysis of suspicious transactions and activities and share the analytical activity itself. FIUs have reported certain important issues which limit or condition the capacity of FIUs and AMLA to engage in joint analysis. Carrying out joint analysis of suspicious transactions and activities will enable FIUs to exploit potential synergies, to use information from different Union and national sources, to obtain a full picture of the anomalous activities and to enrich the analysis. FIUs should be able to conduct joint analyses of suspicious transactions and activities and to set up and participate in joint analysis teams for specific purposes and limited period with the assistance of AMLA. The participation of third parties may be instrumental for the successful outcome of joint analyses. Therefore, FIUs may invite, when necessary and relevant, third parties to take part in the joint analysis where such participation would fall within the respective mandates of those third parties. Similarly, AMLA should be able to take the initiative to set up a joint analysis in certain clearly specified situations.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(55) Effective supervision of all obliged entities is essential to protect the integrity of the Union financial system and of the internal market. To this end, Member States should deploy effective and impartial AML/CFT supervision and set forth the conditions for effective, timely and sustained cooperation between supervisors.

(55) Effective supervision of all obliged entities is essential to protect the integrity of the Union financial system and of the internal market. To this end, Member States should deploy effective, independent and impartial AML/CFT supervision and set forth the conditions for effective, timely and sustained cooperation between supervisors, and the supervisors should be accordingly granted with such legal powers.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(56) Member States should ensure effective, impartial and risk-based supervision of all obliged entities, preferably by public authorities via a separate and independent national supervisor. National supervisors should be able to perform a comprehensive range of tasks in order to exercise effective supervision of all obliged entities.

(56) Member States should ensure effective, impartial, independent and risk-based supervision of all obliged entities, preferably by public authorities via a separate and independent national supervisor. National supervisors should be able to perform a comprehensive range of tasks in order to exercise effective supervision of all obliged entities.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(58) In order to assess and monitor more effectively and regularly the risks the obliged entities are exposed to and the manner in which they implement targeted financial sanctions, it is necessary to clarify that national supervisors are both entitled and bound to conduct all the necessary off-site, on-site and thematic investigations and any other inquiries and assessments as they see necessary. This will not only help supervisors decide on those cases where the specific risks inherent in a sector are clear and understood, but also provide them with the tools required to further disseminate relevant information to obliged entities in order to inform their understanding of money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

(58) In order to assess and monitor more effectively and regularly the risks the obliged entities are exposed to and the manner in which they implement targeted financial sanctions, it is necessary to clarify that national supervisors are both entitled and bound to conduct all the necessary off-site, on-site and thematic investigations and any other inquiries and assessments as they see necessary. They should also be able to react without undue delay to any suspicion of non-compliance with applicable requirements and to take appropriate supervisory measures to address allegations of non-compliance. This will not only help supervisors decide on those cases where the specific risks inherent in a sector are clear and understood, but also provide them with the tools required to further disseminate relevant information to obliged entities in order to inform their understanding of money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(59) Outreach activities, including dissemination of information by the supervisors to the obliged entities under their supervision, is essential to guarantee that the private sector has an adequate understanding of the nature and level of money laundering and terrorist financing risks they face.

(59) Outreach activities, including dissemination of information by the supervisors to the obliged entities under their supervision, including on data protection issues, are essential to guarantee that the private sector has an adequate understanding of the nature and level of money laundering and terrorist financing risks they face and their obligations in that regard.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(60) Supervisors should adopt a risk-based approach to their work, which should enable them to focus their resources where the risks are the highest, whilst ensuring that no sector or entity is left exposed to criminal attempts to launder money or finance terrorism. AMLA should play a leading role in fostering a common understanding of risks, and should therefore be entrusted with developing the benchmarks and a methodology for assessing and classifying the inherent and residual risk profile of obliged entities, as well as the frequency at which such risk profile should be reviewed.

(60) Supervisors should adopt a risk-based approach to their work, which should enable them to focus their resources where the risks are the highest, whilst ensuring that no sector or entity is left exposed to criminal attempts to launder money or finance terrorism. AMLA should play a leading role in fostering a common understanding of risks, and should therefore be entrusted with developing the benchmarks and a methodology for assessing and classifying the inherent and residual risk profile of obliged entities, as well as the frequency at which such risk profile should be reviewed. In that regard, supervisors and self-regulatory bodies should adopt annual activity reports and make summaries thereof publicly available.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(62) Cooperation between national supervisors is essential to ensure a common supervisory approach across the Union. To be effective, this cooperation has to be leveraged to the greatest extent possible and regardless of the respective nature or status of the supervisors. In addition to traditional cooperation - such as the ability to conduct investigations on behalf of a requesting supervisory authority – it is appropriate to mandate the set-up of AML/CFT supervisory colleges with respect to obliged entities operating under the freedom to provide services or of establishment and with the respect of obliged entities which are part of a group.

(62) Cooperation between national supervisors is essential to ensure a common supervisory approach across the Union. To be effective, this cooperation has to be leveraged to the greatest extent possible and regardless of the respective nature or status of the supervisors. In addition to traditional cooperation - such as the ability to conduct investigations on behalf of a requesting supervisory authority – it is appropriate to mandate the set-up of AML/CFT supervisory colleges, including with the participation of third-country financial supervisors under certain conditions and AMLA, with respect to obliged entities operating under the freedom to provide services or of establishment and with the respect of obliged entities which are part of a group. The supervisory activities of AML/CFT supervisory colleges should be proportionate to the level of risk posed by the relevant obliged entity and the scale of significance of cross-border activity.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(66) Cross-border groups need to have in place far-reaching group-wide policies and procedures. To ensure that cross-border operations are matched by adequate supervision, there is a need to set out detailed supervisory rules, enabling supervisors of the home Member State and those of the host Member State cooperate with each other to the greatest extent possible, regardless of their respective nature or status, and with AMLA to assess the risks, monitor developments that could affect the various entities that form part of the group coordinate supervisory action. Given its coordinating role, AMLA should be entrusted with the duty to developing the draft regulatory technical standards defining the detailed respective duties of the home and host supervisors of groups, and the modalities of cooperation between them. The supervision of the effective implementation of group policy on AML/CFT should be done in accordance with the principles and modalities of consolidated supervision as laid down in the relevant European sectoral legislation.

(66) Cross-border groups need to have in place far-reaching group-wide policies and procedures. To ensure that cross-border operations are matched by adequate supervision, there is a need to set out detailed supervisory rules, enabling supervisors of the home Member State and those of the host Member State cooperate with each other to the greatest extent possible, regardless of their respective nature or status, and with AMLA to assess the risks, monitor developments that could affect the various entities that form part of the group, coordinate supervisory action and settle disputes by means of binding instructions. Given its coordinating role, AMLA should be entrusted with the duty to developing the draft regulatory technical standards defining the detailed respective duties of the home and host supervisors of groups, and the modalities of cooperation between them. The supervision of the effective implementation of group policy on AML/CFT should be done in accordance with the principles and modalities of consolidated supervision as laid down in the relevant European sectoral legislation.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(69) Directive (EU) 2015/849 allowed Member States to entrust the supervision of some obliged entities to self-regulatory bodies. However, the quality and intensity of supervision performed by such self-regulatory bodies has been insufficient, and under no or close to no public scrutiny. Where a Member State decides to entrust supervision to a self-regulatory body, it should also designate a public authority to oversee the activities of the self-regulatory body to ensure that the performance of those activities is in line with the requirements of this Directive.

(69) Directive (EU) 2015/849 allowed Member States to entrust the supervision of some obliged entities to self-regulatory bodies. However, the quality and intensity of supervision performed by such self-regulatory bodies has been insufficient, and under no or close to no public scrutiny. Where a Member State decides to entrust supervision to a self-regulatory body, it should also designate a public authority to oversee the activities of the self-regulatory body to ensure that the performance of those activities is in line with the requirements of this Directive. That public authority should be operationally independent and autonomous and should carry out its functions free of political, government or industry influence or interference.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(70) The importance of combating money laundering and terrorist financing should result in Member States laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative sanctions and measures in national law for failure to respect the requirements of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation]. National supervisors should be empowered by Member States to impose such measures to obliged entities to remedy the situation in the case of breaches and, where the breach so justifies, issue pecuniary sanctions. The range of sanctions and measures should be sufficiently broad to allow Member States and competent authorities to take account of the differences between obliged entities, in particular between credit institutions and financial institutions and other obliged entities, as regards their size, characteristics and the nature of the business.

(70) The importance of combating money laundering and terrorist financing should result in Member States laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative sanctions and measures in national law for failure to respect the requirements of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation]. National supervisors should be empowered by Member States to impose such measures to obliged entities to remedy the situation in the case of breaches and, where the breach so justifies, issue pecuniary sanctions. The range of sanctions and measures should be sufficiently broad to allow Member States and competent authorities to take account of the differences between obliged entities, in particular between credit institutions, financial institutions and other obliged entities, as regards their size, characteristics and the nature of the business.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(71) Member States currently have a diverse range of administrative sanctions and measures for breaches of the key preventative provisions in place and an inconsistent approach to investigating and sanctioning violations of anti-money laundering requirements, nor is there a common understanding among supervisors as to what should constitute a "serious" violation and thus distinguish when an administrative sanction should be imposed. That diversity is detrimental to the efforts made in combating money laundering and terrorist financing and the Union's response is fragmented. Therefore, common criteria for determining the most appropriate supervisory response to breaches should be laid down and a range of administrative measures that the supervisors could impose when the breaches are not sufficiently serious to be punished with an administrative sanction should be provided. In order to incentivise obliged entities to comply with the provisions of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation], it is necessary to strengthen the dissuasive nature of administrative sanctions. Accordingly, the minimum amount of the maximum penalty that can be imposed in case of serious breaches of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] should be raised. In transposing this Directive, Member States should ensure that the imposition of administrative sanctions and measures, and of criminal sanctions in accordance with national law, does not breach the principle of ne bis in idem.

(71) Member States currently have a diverse range of administrative sanctions and measures for breaches of the key preventative provisions in place and an inconsistent approach to investigating and sanctioning violations of anti-money laundering requirements, nor is there a common understanding among supervisors as to what should constitute a "serious" violation and thus distinguish when an administrative sanction should be imposed. That diversity is detrimental to the efforts made in combating money laundering and terrorist financing and the Union's response is fragmented. Therefore, common criteria for determining the most appropriate supervisory response to breaches should be laid down and a range of administrative measures that the supervisors could impose when the breaches are not sufficiently serious to be punished with an administrative sanction should be provided. In order to incentivise obliged entities to comply with the provisions of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation], it is necessary to strengthen the dissuasive nature of administrative sanctions. Accordingly, the minimum amount of the maximum penalty that can be imposed in case of serious breaches of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] should be raised, in a proportionate and adequate way. In that regard, it is essential that regulatory technical standards are developed to define indicators to classify the level of gravity of breaches and the criteria to be taken into account when setting the level of sanctions, including minimum and maximum values of pecuniary sanctions in accordance with the level of gravity, and to address appropriately situations of repeated breaches. Member States should also ensure that legal persons can be held liable for breaches committed for their benefit by any natural person, acting individually or as part of an body of that legal person and having a leading position within the legal person, or where the lack of supervision or control has made possible the commission of breaches. In transposing this Directive, Member States should ensure that the imposition of administrative sanctions and measures, and of criminal sanctions in accordance with national law, does not breach the principle of ne bis in idem.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(73) Publication of an administrative sanction or measure for breach of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] can have a strong dissuasive effect against repetition of such breach. It also informs other entities of the money laundering and financing of terrorism risks associated with the sanctioned obliged entity before entering into a business relationship and assists supervisors in other Member States in relation to the risks associated with an obliged entity when it operates in their Member State on a cross-border basis. For those reasons, the requirement to publish decisions on sanctions against which there is no appeal should be confirmed. However, any such publication should be proportionate and, in the taking of a decision whether to publish an administrative sanction or measure, supervisors should take into account the gravity of the breach and the dissuasive effect that the publication is likely to achieve.

(73) Publication of an administrative sanction or measure for breach of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] can have a strong dissuasive effect against repetition of such breach. It also informs other entities of the money laundering and financing of terrorism risks associated with the sanctioned obliged entity before entering into a business relationship and assists supervisors in other Member States in relation to the risks associated with an obliged entity when it operates in their Member State on a cross-border basis. For those reasons, the requirement to publish decisions on sanctions where such decisions are no longer subject to internal review should be confirmed. However, any such publication should be proportionate and, in the taking of a decision whether to publish an administrative sanction or measure, supervisors should take into account the gravity of the breach and the dissuasive effect that the publication is likely to achieve.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(74) There have been a number of cases where employees who have reported their suspicions of money laundering have been subjected to threats or hostile action. It is crucial that this issue be addressed to ensure effectiveness of the AML/CFT system. Member States should be aware of this problem and should do whatever they can to protect individuals, including employees and representatives of the obliged entity, from such threats or hostile action, and to provide, in accordance with national law, appropriate protection to such persons, particularly with regard to their right to the protection of their personal data and their rights to effective judicial protection and representation.

(74) There have been a number of cases where employees who have reported their suspicions of money laundering or of violations of AML/CFT requirements have been subjected to threats or hostile action. It is crucial that this issue be addressed to ensure effectiveness of the AML/CFT system. Member States should be aware of this problem and should protect individuals, including employees, such as data protection officers and AML compliance officers, and other representatives of the obliged entity, from such threats or hostile action, and provide, in accordance with Union and national law, in particular Directive EU 2019/1937, appropriate protection to such persons, particularly with regard to their right to the protection of their personal data and their rights to effective judicial protection and representation. Member States should apply the same approach with regard to employees of competent authorities, in particular staff from supervisory authorities or self-regulatory bodies who report potential or actual breaches of AML/CFT requirements.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75) The new fully-integrated and coherent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing policy at Union level, with designated roles for both Union and national competent authorities and with a view to ensure their smooth and constant cooperation. In that regard, cooperation between all national and Union AML/CFT authorities is of the utmost importance and should be clarified and enhanced. Internally, it remains the duty of Member States to provide for the necessary rules to ensure that policy makers, the FIUs, supervisors, including AMLA, and other competent authorities involved in AML/CFT, as well as tax authorities and law enforcement authorities when acting within the scope of this Directive, have effective mechanisms to enable them to cooperate and coordinate, including through a restrictive approach to the refusal by competent authorities to cooperate and exchange information at the request of another competent authority.

(75) The new fully-integrated and coherent anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing policy at Union level, with designated roles for both Union and national competent authorities and with a view to ensure their smooth and constant cooperation. In that regard, cooperation between all national and Union AML/CFT authorities is of the utmost importance and should be clarified and enhanced in order to combat money laundering and terrorist financing and to prevent the non-implementation and evasion of targeted financial sanctions. Internally, it remains the duty of Member States to provide for the necessary rules to ensure that policy makers, the FIUs, supervisors, including AMLA, and other competent authorities involved in AML/CFT, as well as tax authorities and law enforcement authorities when acting within the scope of this Directive, have effective mechanisms to enable them to cooperate and coordinate, including with other Union bodies and through a restrictive approach to the refusal by competent authorities to cooperate and exchange information at the request of another competent authority.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(76) In order to facilitate and promote effective cooperation, and in particular the exchange of information, Member States should be required to communicate to the Commission and AMLA the list of their competent authorities and relevant contact details.

(76) In order to facilitate and promote effective cooperation, and in particular the exchange of information, Member States should be required to communicate to the Commission and AMLA the list of their competent authorities and registers and their relevant contact details. That list should take into account existing expertise and available networks, such as the expertise gained by the competent authorities of Member States and of third countries through their cooperation with Europol in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(78a) Member States should ensure that credit institutions and financial institutions located on their territory provide legal persons and natural persons who are legally resident in the Union, including natural persons with no fixed address, asylum seekers and natural persons who have not been granted a residence permit but whose expulsion is impossible for legal or factual reasons, the right to open and use a payment account with basic features. Such a right should apply irrespective of the natural person’s place of residence. Such a right does not, in any way, exempt obliged entities from their obligations under this Directive and Regulation ... [please insert reference to Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)], in particular their obligation to ensure that proper due diligence checks are carried out on the persons in question.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(79) The cooperation between financial supervisors and the authorities responsible for crisis management of credit institutions and investment firms, such as in particular Deposit Guarantee Scheme designated authorities and resolution authorities, is necessary to reconcile the objectives to prevent money laundering under this Directive and to protect financial stability and depositors under the Directives 2014/49/EU and 2014/59/EU. Financial supervisors should oversee the performance of customer due diligence where the credit institution has been determined failing or likely to fail or when the deposits are defined as unavailable, and the reporting of any suspicious transactions to the FIU. Financial supervisors should inform the authorities responsible for crisis management of credit institutions and investment firms of any relevant outcome from the customer due diligence performed and of any account that has been suspended by the FIU.

(79) The cooperation between financial supervisors and the authorities responsible for crisis management of credit institutions and investment firms, such as in particular Deposit Guarantee Scheme designated authorities and resolution authorities, is necessary to reconcile the objectives to prevent money laundering under this Directive and to protect financial stability and depositors under the Directives 2014/49/EU and 2014/59/EU. Financial supervisors should oversee the performance and quality of customer due diligence processes where the credit institution has been determined failing or likely to fail or when the deposits are defined as unavailable, and the reporting of any suspicious transactions to the FIU. Financial supervisors should inform the authorities responsible for crisis management of credit institutions and investment firms of any relevant outcome from the customer due diligence performed and of any account that has been suspended by the FIU.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(83) Supervisors should be able to cooperate and exchange confidential information, regardless of their respective nature or status. To this end, they should have an adequate legal basis for exchange of confidential information and for cooperation. Exchange of information and cooperation with other authorities competent for supervising or overseeing obliged entities under other Union acts should not be hampered unintentionally by legal uncertainty which may stem from a lack of explicit provisions in this field. Clarification of the legal framework is even more important since prudential supervision has, in a number of cases, been entrusted to non-AML/CFT supervisors, such as the European Central Bank (ECB).

(83) Supervisors should be able to cooperate and exchange confidential information, regardless of their respective nature or status. To this end, they should have an adequate legal basis for exchange of confidential information and for cooperation. Exchange of information and cooperation with other authorities competent for supervising or overseeing obliged entities under other Union acts should not be hampered unintentionally by legal uncertainty which may stem from a lack of explicit provisions in this field. Clarification of the legal framework is even more important since prudential supervision has, in a number of cases, been entrusted to non-AML/CFT supervisors, such as the European Central Bank (ECB). When imposing administrative sanctions and supervisory measures on obliged entities, or performing other tasks necessitating coordination between supervisors and non-AML/CFT authorities, the authorities concerned should take into account the differences between their respective supervisory mandates and cooperate accordingly.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(83a) The exchange of information among supervisors and with other authorities is a key enabler in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Union AML/CFT framework. Member States should authorise the exchange of information between supervisors and other relevant authorities, including, where relevant, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and OLAF with regard to possible cases pertaining to their respective legal mandates. Confidential information exchanged should only be used in the discharge of the duties of the authorities concerned and in the context of administrative or judicial proceedings specifically related to the discharge of those duties.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(84) The effectiveness of the Union AML/CFT framework relies on the cooperation between a wide array of competent authorities. To facilitate such cooperation, AMLA should be entrusted to develop guidelines in coordination with the ECB, the European Supervisory Authorities, Europol, Eurojust, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on cooperation between all competent authorities. Such guidelines should also describe how authorities competent for the supervision or oversight of obliged entities under other Union acts should take into account money laundering and terrorist financing concerns in the performance of their duties.

(84) The effectiveness of the Union AML/CFT framework relies on the cooperation between a wide array of competent authorities. To facilitate such cooperation, AMLA should be entrusted to develop guidelines in coordination with the ECB, the European Supervisory Authorities, Europol, Eurojust, and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on cooperation between all competent authorities at Union and national level. Such guidelines should also describe how authorities competent for the supervision or oversight of obliged entities under other Union acts should take into account money laundering and terrorist financing concerns in the performance of their duties.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(86) It is essential that the alignment of this Directive with the revised FATF Recommendations is carried out in full compliance with Union law, in particular as regards Union data protection law, including rules on data transfers, as well as the protection of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’). Certain aspects of the implementation of this Directive involve the collection, analysis, storage and sharing of data within the Union and with third countries. Such processing of personal data should be permitted, while fully respecting fundamental rights, only for the purposes laid down in this Directive, and for the activities required under this Directive, such as the exchange of information among competent authorities.

(86) It is essential that the alignment of this Directive with the revised FATF Recommendations is carried out in full compliance with Union law, in particular as regards Union data protection law, including rules on data transfers, as well as the protection of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’). Certain aspects of the implementation of this Directive involve the collection, analysis, storage and sharing of data within the Union and possibly with third countries. Such processing of personal data should be permitted only for the purposes laid down in this Directive, and for the activities required under this Directive, such as the exchange of information among competent authorities, and should fully respect fundamental rights obligations as required by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Union data protection rules as regards onward data transfers, including to third countries.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(90) In order to ensure consistent approaches among FIUs and among supervisors, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission to supplement this Directive by adopting the regulatory technical standards setting out the criteria as regards appointment and functions of a central contact point of certain services providers, setting out benchmarks and methodology for assessing and classifying the inherent and residual risk profile of obliged entities and the frequency of risk profile reviews, laying down details of duties of the home and host supervisors, and the modalities of cooperation between them, specifying the general conditions for the functioning of the AML supervisory colleges and the operational functioning of such colleges, defining indicators to classify the level of gravity of breaches of this Directive and criteria to be taken into account when setting the level of administrative sanctions or taking administrative measures. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

(90) In order to ensure consistent approaches among FIUs and among supervisors, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission to supplement this Directive by adopting the regulatory technical standards setting out the criteria as regards appointment and functions of a central contact point of certain services providers, setting out indicators to classify the level of gravity of breaches and criteria for repeated failures to provide registers with up-to-date, accurate and adequate information on beneficial ownership, setting out benchmarks and methodology for assessing and classifying the inherent and residual risk profile of obliged entities and the frequency of risk profile reviews, laying down details of duties of the home and host supervisors, and the modalities of cooperation between them, specifying the general conditions for the functioning of the AML supervisory colleges and the operational functioning of such colleges, specifying the general conditions for supervision of groups of obliged entities other than credit or financial institutions, defining indicators to classify the level of gravity of breaches of this Directive and criteria to be taken into account when setting the level of administrative sanctions or taking administrative measures. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(91) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in order to lay down a methodology for the collection of statistics, establish the format for the submission of beneficial ownership information, define the technical conditions for the interconnection of beneficial ownership registers and of bank account registers and data retrieval mechanisms as well as to adopt implementing technical standards specifying the format to be used for the exchange of the information among FIUs of the Member States. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council39 .

(91) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in order to lay down a methodology for the collection of statistics, establish the format for the submission of beneficial ownership information, define the technical conditions for the interconnection of beneficial ownership registers and of bank account registers and data retrieval mechanisms, define the technical conditions for the connection of the Member States' mechanisms to the single access point on land and real estate, specify the criteria and format to be used by FIUs for sharing information on suspended or prohibited transactions and on suspended accounts, adopt implementing technical standards specifying the format to be used for the exchange of the information among FIUs of the Member States and the relevant factors to be taken into account when determining if a suspicious transaction report concerns another Member State, and adopt implementing technical standards specifying a common template for the cooperation agreements between financial supervisors and their counterparts in third countries. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

__________________

39 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(92) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter, in particular the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter), the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter) and the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter).

(92) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter, in particular the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter), the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter) and the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter). It does not modify the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and legal principles enshrined in Article 6 TEU.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) measures applicable to sectors exposed to money laundering and terrorist financing at national level;

(a) measures applicable to sectors exposed to money laundering and terrorist financing at Union and national level

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the set-up and access to beneficial ownership, bank account and real estate registers;

(c) access to information on beneficial ownership, bank accounts, land or real estate registers and relevant goods

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) ‘entity operating on a cross-border basis’ means an obliged entity having at least one establishment in another Member State or in a third country;

(7) ‘entity operating on a cross-border basis’ means an obliged entity having at least one establishment in another Member State or in a third country, or operating under the freedom to provide services

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8a) ‘predicate offence’ means a criminal activity as defined in Article 2, point (3), of Regulation ... [please insert reference to Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)]

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Where the national risk assessment carried out by Member States pursuant to Article 8 identifies that, in addition to obliged entities, entities in other sectors are exposed to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, Member States may decide to apply the requirements of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final] to those additional entities.

1. Where the national risk assessment carried out by Member States pursuant to Article 8, information received from FIUs in other Member States or information from AMLA identifies that, in addition to obliged entities, entities in other sectors are exposed to money laundering and terrorist financing risks, Member States may apply the requirements of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final] to those additional entities

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the text of the national measures that the Member State intends to adopt.

(c) the text of the national measures that the Member State intends to propose or adopt

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Requirements relating to certain service providers

Requirements relating to certain obliged entities

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. Member States shall ensure that the procedures for licensing currency exchange, cheque cashing offices and trusts or company service providers require applicants to demonstrate a good understanding of the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing in their sector of activity. They shall also ensure that applicants have access to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing training provided in accordance with uniform and high standards by supervisory authorities, certified service providers or obliged entities that have the knowledge and expertise necessary to provide such training.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2b. Member States shall ensure that procedures under national law for entering regulated professions that are obliged entities as referred to in Article 3, point (3) of Regulation ... [please insert reference to Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)] require applicants to demonstrate a good understanding of the risks of money laundering and terrorism financing in their sector of activity.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2c. Member States shall ensure that estate agents as referred to in Article 3 point (3) (d) of Regulation ... [please insert reference to –Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)] develop or have in place training programmes for professionals. Such training programmes may be facilitated or provided by professional associations representing estate agents and the real estate sector.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States may require electronic money issuers as defined in Article 2(3) of Directive 2009/110/EC44 , payment service providers as defined in Article 4(11) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and crypto-assets service providers operating through agents located in the host Member State and operating under either the right of establishment or the freedom to provide services, and whose head office is situated in another Member State, to appoint a central contact point in their territory. That central contact point shall ensure, on behalf of the entity operating on a cross-border basis, compliance with AML/CFT rules and shall facilitate supervision by supervisors, including by providing supervisors with documents and information on request.

1. Member States may require electronic money issuers as defined in Article 2(3) of Directive 2009/110/EC44, payment service providers as defined in Article 4(11) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and crypto-assets service providers operating through an agent, a distributor or any other natural or legal person which acts on their behalf, located in the host Member State and operating under either the right of establishment or the freedom to provide services, and whose head office is situated in another Member State, to appoint a central contact point in their territory. That central contact point shall ensure, on behalf of the entity operating on a cross-border basis, compliance with AML/CFT rules and shall facilitate supervision by supervisors, including by providing supervisors with documents and information on request.

__________________

__________________

44 Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (OJ L 267, 10.10.2009, p. 7).

44 Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (OJ L 267, 10.10.2009, p. 7).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall require supervisors to verify that the members of the senior management in the obliged entities referred to in Article 4, and the beneficial owners of such entities, act with honesty and integrity. Senior management of such entities should also possess knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions.

1. Member States shall require supervisors to verify that the members of the senior management in the obliged entities referred to in Article 4 as well as in the obliged entities referred to in Article 3, points (3)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (h) to (l), of Regulation ... [please insert reference to Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)], and the beneficial owners of such entities, act with honesty and integrity. Senior management of such entities shall be of good repute and possess proven knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions. In case no management role exists in an obliged entity, those requirements applies to the person referred to in Article 9(6), second subparagraph, of Regulation ... [insert reference to AML Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)].

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall ensure that supervisors verify at regular intervals and on a risk-sensitive basis whether the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 continue to be met. In particular, they shall verify whether the senior management acts with honesty and integrity and possesses knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering or terrorist financing is being or has been committed or attempted, or there is increased risk thereof in an obliged entity.

3. Member States shall ensure that supervisors verify at regular intervals and on a risk-sensitive basis whether the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 continue to be met. In particular, they shall verify whether the senior management is of good repute, acts with honesty and integrity and possesses proven knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering or terrorist financing is being or has been committed or attempted, or there is increased risk thereof in an obliged entity

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Supervisors shall have the power to request the removal of any person convicted of money laundering, any of its predicate offences or terrorist financing from the management role of the obliged entities referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. Supervisors shall have the power to remove members of the senior management that are not deemed to act with honesty and integrity and possess knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions.

4. Member States shall ensure that supervisors have the power to request the removal of any person convicted of money laundering, any of its predicate offences or terrorist financing from the management role of the obliged entities referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. Supervisors shall have the power to remove or suspend members of the senior management where it is deemed that they are not of good repute, have not acted with honesty and integrity or do not possess proven knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions. In cases where no management role exists in an obliged entity, supervisors shall have the power to take adequate measures where it has been deemed that the requirements laid down in paragraph 1 are not met.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4a. Member States shall ensure that supervisors have the power to request the suspension of any person from the management role of an obliged entity as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 or, in the case where no management role exists in an obliged entity, to take adequate measures, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering or terrorist financing is being or has been committed or attempted, or that the risk thereof could increase in connection with that obliged entity.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where the person convicted of money laundering, any of its predicate offences or terrorist financing is the beneficial owner of an obliged entity referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall ensure that such persons can be disassociated from any obliged entity, including by granting supervisors the power to request the divestment of the holding by the beneficial owner in an obliged entity.

5. Where the person convicted of money laundering, any of its predicate offences or terrorist financing is the beneficial owner of an obliged entity referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall ensure that such persons are disassociated from any obliged entity, including by granting supervisors the power to request the divestment of the holding by the beneficial owner in an obliged entity

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. For the purposes of this Article, Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with their national law, supervisors or any other authority competent at national level for assessing the appropriateness of persons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, check the existence of a relevant conviction in the criminal record of the person concerned. Any exchange of information for those purposes shall be carried out in accordance with Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA and Decision 2009/316/JHA as implemented in national law.

6. For the purposes of this Article, Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with their national law, supervisors or any other authority competent at national level for assessing the appropriateness of persons referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, check at least the existence of a relevant conviction in the criminal record of the person concerned. Any exchange of information for those purposes shall be carried out in accordance with Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA and Decision 2009/316/JHA as implemented in national law.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6a. Member States shall ensure that decisions taken by supervisors pursuant to this Article are subject to administrative appeal and to an effective judicial remedy.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6b. By ... [two years after the date of transposition of this Directive], AMLA shall issue guidelines on the elements to be taken into account by supervisors when assessing whether:

(a)  the senior managers and the beneficial owners of obliged entities referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 act with honesty and integrity;

(b)  the senior management of obliged entities referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 are of good repute and possess proven knowledge and expertise necessary to carry out their functions.

(c)  there are reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering or terrorist financing is being or has been committed or attempted, or that the risk thereof could increase in connection with that obliged entity.

When drawing up the guidelines referred to in the first subparagraph of this Paragraph, AMLA shall take into account the specificities of each sector in which the obliged entities operate and of previous guidelines issued jointly by the European Securities and Market Authority and the European Banking Authority on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders under Directive 2013/36/EU and Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1a.

__________________

1a Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6c. Member States shall ensure that supervisors or any other authority competent at national level for assessing the appropriateness of persons as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article consult the AMLA database of sanctions provided for in Article 44(2).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

To that end, the Commission shall, at the latest by [4 years after the date of transposition of this Directive], draw up a report identifying, analysing and evaluating those risks at Union level. Thereafter, the Commission shall update its report every four years. The Commission may update parts of the report more frequently, if appropriate.

To that end, the Commission shall, by [four years after the entry into force of this Directive], draw up a report identifying, analysing and evaluating those risks at Union level. Thereafter, the Commission shall update its report every three years. The Commission may update parts of the report more frequently, if appropriate.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The report referred to in the first subparagraph shall be made public, except for those parts which contain classified information.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the most widespread means used to launder illicit proceeds, including, where available, those particularly used in transactions between Member States and third countries, independently of the identification of a third country pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final];

(c) the most widespread means used to launder illicit proceeds, including, where available, those particularly used in transactions between Member States and third countries, independently of the identification of a third country pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final]

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ca) an assessment of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing associated with legal persons and legal arrangements, including the exposure to risks deriving from foreign legal persons and legal arrangements;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) the risks of non-implementation and evasion of proliferation financing-related targeted financial sanctions.

(d) the risks of non-implementation and evasion of targeted financial sanctions

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission shall make recommendations to Member States on the measures suitable for addressing the identified risks. In the event that Member States decide not to apply any of the recommendations in their national AML/CFT regimes, they shall notify the Commission thereof and provide a justification for such a decision.

3. The Commission shall make recommendations to Member States on the measures suitable for addressing the identified risks and deficiencies. Member States shall endeavour to follow those recommendations. In the event that Member States decide not to apply any of the recommendations in their national AML/CFT regimes, they shall notify the Commission thereof and provide a detailed justification stating legitimate reasons for such a decision. The Commission’s recommendations and the Member States’ decisions in response to those recommendations, including the justifications where they decide not to apply any of the recommendations, shall be made public.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. By [3 years after the date of transposition of this Directive], AMLA shall issue an opinion addressed to the Commission on the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting the Union. Thereafter, AMLA shall issue an opinion every two years.

4. By .. [3 years after the date of transposition of this Directive], AMLA, in accordance with article 44 of Regulation ... [please insert reference to AMLA Regulation - 2021/0240(COD)], shall issue an opinion addressed to the Commission on the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting the Union. Thereafter, AMLA shall issue an opinion every two years. AMLA may issue opinions or updates of its previous opinions more frequently, where it deems it appropriate to do so. The opinions issued by AMLA shall be made public, except for those parts which contain classified information.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. In conducting the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall organise the work at Union level, shall take into account the opinions referred to in paragraph 4 and shall involve the Member States' experts in the area of AML/CFT, representatives from national supervisory authorities and FIUs, as well as AMLA and other Union level bodies where appropriate.

5. In conducting the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall organise the work at Union level, shall take into account the opinions referred to in paragraph 4 and shall involve the Member States' experts in the area of AML/CFT, representatives from national supervisory authorities and FIUs, AMLA and other Union level bodies, and other relevant stakeholders, where appropriate

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. Within 2 years of the adoption of the report referred to in paragraph 1, and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the actions taken based on the findings of that report.

6. Within two years of the adoption of the report referred to in paragraph 1, and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the actions taken based on the findings of that report

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Each Member State shall carry out a national risk assessment to identify, assess, understand and mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting it. It shall keep that risk assessment up to date and review it at least every four years.

1. Each Member State shall carry out a national risk assessment to identify, assess, understand and mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, and the risks of non-implementation and evasion of targeted financial sanctions affecting it. It shall assess risks on a continuous basis, keep that risk assessment up to date and review it at least every three years. Member States may decide to carry out a review of that risk assessment more frequently, where they deem it appropriate to do so. In addition, they may carry out ad hoc sectoral risk assessments depending on the level of risk.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Based on the identification of country-specific risks and for good reason, the Commission may require Member States to review their risk assessment earlier than provided for in the first subparagraph in order to reduce the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing in the Union.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Each Member State shall also take appropriate steps to identify, assess, understand and mitigate the risks of non-implementation and evasion of proliferation financing-related targeted financial sanctions.

Each Member State shall also take appropriate steps to identify, assess, understand and mitigate the risks of non-implementation and evasion of targeted financial sanctions

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Each Member State shall designate an authority or establish a mechanism to coordinate the national response to the risks referred to in paragraph 1. The identity of that authority or the description of the mechanism shall be notified to the Commission, AMLA, and other Member States.

2. Each Member State shall designate an authority or establish a mechanism to coordinate the national response to the risks referred to in paragraph 1. The identity of that authority or the description of the mechanism shall be notified to the Commission, AMLA, Europol and other Member States. AMLA shall keep a repository of the designated authorities or established mechanisms. If a Member State establishes a mechanism, in particular to coordinate responses at regional or local level, efficient and effective coordination shall be ensured between all the authorities involved.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. In carrying out the national risk assessments referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, Member States shall take into account the report referred to in Article 7(1).

3. In carrying out the national risk assessments referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, Member States shall take into account the methodology used by the Commission for the report referred to in Article 7(1) and the results of that report.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) improve its AML/CFT regime, in particular by identifying any areas where obliged entities are to apply enhanced measures and, where appropriate, specifying the measures to be taken;

(a) improve its AML/CFT regime, in particular by identifying any areas where obliged entities are to apply enhanced measures in line with a risk-based approach and, where appropriate, specifying the measures to be taken;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) assess the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing associated with each type of legal person and legal arrangement in their territory and have an understanding of the exposure to risks deriving from foreign legal persons and legal arrangements;

(c) assess the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing associated with each type of legal person and legal arrangement in their territory, taking into account the typical ownership and control structure of different types of legal entities including the number of layers of ownership and the type of legal entity in each layer, and have an understanding of the exposure to risks deriving from foreign legal persons and legal arrangements, in particular those which have a multi-layered control structure involving several jurisdictions;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ca) identify patterns of money laundering and terrorist financing and assess trends for the associated risks at national or crossborder level;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) decide on the allocation and prioritisation of resources to combat money laundering and terrorist financing as well as non-implementation and evasion of proliferation financing-related targeted financial sanctions;

(d) decide on the allocation and prioritisation of resources to combat money laundering and terrorist financing as well as non-implementation and evasion of targeted financial sanctions;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) make appropriate information available promptly to competent authorities and to obliged entities to facilitate the carrying out of their own money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments as well as the assessment of risks of evasion of proliferation financing-related targeted financial sanctions referred to in Article 8 of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final].

(f) make appropriate information available promptly to competent authorities and to obliged entities to facilitate the carrying out of their own money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments as well as the assessment of risks of evasion of targeted financial sanctions referred to in Article 8 of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - COM/2021/420 final].

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(fa) assess the performance of supervisors of obliged entities;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(fb) assess the performance of registers and data retrieval systems specified in this Directive and identify weaknesses to be addressed;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In the national risk assessment, Member States shall describe the institutional structure and broad procedures of their AML/CFT regime, including, inter alia, the FIU, tax authorities and prosecutors, as well as the allocated human and financial resources to the extent that this information is available.

In the national risk assessment, Member States shall describe the institutional structure and broad procedures of their AML/CFT regime, including, inter alia, the FIU, tax authorities and prosecutors, the level of European and international cooperation with regard to money laundering and terrorist financing, the whistleblower protection mechanisms as well as the allocated human and financial resources.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall ensure appropriate participation of competent authorities and relevant stakeholders when carrying out their national risk assessment.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Member States shall make the results of their national risk assessments, including their updates, available to the Commission, to AMLA and to the other Member States. Any Member State may provide relevant additional information, where appropriate, to the Member State carrying out the national risk assessment. A summary of the assessment shall be made publicly available. That summary shall not contain classified information. The information contained therein shall not permit the identification of any natural or legal person.

5. Member States shall make the results of their national risk assessments, including their updates and reviews, available to the Commission, to AMLA and to the other Member States. Any Member State may provide relevant additional information, where appropriate, to the Member State carrying out the national risk assessment. A summary of the results of the assessment shall be made publicly available. That summary shall not contain classified information and shall in general respect high standards of data protection. The information contained therein shall not name any natural or legal persons.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5a. The Commission and AMLA shall make recommendations to Member States on the measures suitable for addressing the risk identified in the national risk assessments. In the event that a Member State decides not to apply any of the recommendations in its national AML/CFT regime, it shall notify the Commission thereof and provide a justification for that decision.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) data measuring the reporting, investigation and judicial phases of the national AML/CFT regime, including the number of suspicious transaction reports made to the FIU, the follow-up given to those reports, the information on cross-border physical transfers of cash submitted to the FIU in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 together with the follow-up given to the information submitted and, on an annual basis, the number of cases investigated, the number of persons prosecuted, the number of persons convicted for money laundering or terrorist financing offences, the types of predicate offences identified in accordance with Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council45 where such information is available, and the value in euro of property that has been frozen, seized or confiscated;

(b) data measuring the reporting, investigation and judicial phases of the national AML/CFT regime, including the number of suspicious transaction reports made to the FIU and the value of such transactions, the follow-up given to those reports, the information on cross-border physical transfers of cash submitted to the FIU in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1672 together with the follow-up given to the information submitted and, on an annual basis, the number of cases investigated, the number of persons prosecuted, the number of persons convicted for money laundering or terrorist financing offences, the types of predicate offences identified in accordance with Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council45 where such information is available, and the value in euro of property that has been frozen, seized or confiscated;

__________________

__________________

45 Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law (OJ L 284, 12.11.2018, p. 22).

45 Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law (OJ L 284, 12.11.2018, p. 22).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) if available, data identifying the number and percentage of reports resulting in further investigation, together with the annual report drawn up by FIUs pursuant to Article 21;

(c) data identifying the number of suspicious transaction reports disseminated by the FIU to competent authorities, the number and percentage of reports resulting in further investigation, together with the annual report drawn up by FIUs pursuant to Article 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ha) the number of discrepancies reported to the central register referred to in Article 10, including measures or sanctions imposed by the entity in charge of the central register, the number of on-site and off-site inspections, types of typical discrepancies and patterns identified in the verification process by the entity in charge of the central register

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(hb) the following information regarding the implementation of Article 12:

(i)  the number of requests to access beneficial ownership on the basis of the categories laid down in Article 12(2)

(ii)  the percentage of requests for access to information which is refused under each category laid down in Article 12(2a)

(iii)  a summary of the categories of persons granted access to beneficial ownership information under Article 12(2a), second subparagraph ;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(hc) the information referred to in Article 19(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/1153.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall ensure that the statistics referred to in paragraph 2 are collected and transmitted to the Commission on an annual basis. The statistics referred to in paragraph 2, points (a), (c), (d) and (f), shall also be transmitted to AMLA.

3. Member States shall ensure that the statistics referred to in paragraph 2 are collected and transmitted to the Commission on an annual basis. The statistics referred to in paragraph 2 shall also be transmitted to AMLA

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. By [3 years after the date of transposition of this Directive], AMLA shall adopt an opinion addressed to the Commission on the methodology for the collection of the statistics referred to in paragraph 2, points (a), (c), (d) and (f).

4. By [two years after the date of entry into force of this Directive], AMLA shall adopt an opinion addressed to the Commission on the methodology for the collection of the statistics referred to in paragraph 2, points (a), (c), (d) and (f).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The Commission is empowered to adopt implementing acts laying down the methodology for the collection of the statistics referred to in paragraph 2 and the arrangements for their transmission to the Commission and AMLA. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 54(2).

5. By ... [two years and six months after the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, the methodology for the collection of the statistics referred to in paragraph 2 and the arrangements for their transmission to the Commission and AMLA. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 54(2).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The Commission shall publish a biennial report summarising and explaining the statistics referred to in paragraph 2, which shall be made available on its website.

6. By ... [one year after the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall publish a first report based on statistics provided by Member States pursuant to Article 44 of Directive (EU) 2015/849. By … [three years after the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall publish a report summarising and explaining the statistics referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, based on the data collected in accordance with this Article. Thereafter, Commission shall publish a biennial report summarising and explaining the statistics referred to in paragraph 2, which shall be made publicly available on its website. Those reports shall be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall also ensure that beneficial ownership information of legal entities incorporated outside the Union or of express trusts or similar legal arrangements administered outside the Union are held in the central register under the conditions laid down in Article 48 of Regulation ... [please insert reference to Anti-money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)].

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The beneficial ownership information contained in the central registers may be collected in accordance with national systems.

The beneficial ownership information contained in the central registers shall be available in machine-readable format and be collected in accordance with the implementing acts referred to in paragraph 4. Each Member State shall ensure that such beneficial ownership information is made available in the official language or languages of that Member State and in English.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1 a. Member States shall ensure that the information on the current beneficial and the information on the past beneficial owners is available in the central registers for the period set out in paragraph 12.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Where there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information held by the central registers, Member States shall ensure that legal entities and legal arrangements are required to provide additional information on a risk-sensitive basis, including resolutions of the board of directors and minutes of their meetings, partnership agreements, trust deeds, power of attorney or other contractual agreements and documentation.

2. Where there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information held by the central registers, Member States shall ensure that the entities in charge of the central registers are empowered to request from corporate and legal entities, trustees of any express trust and persons holding an equivalent position in a similar legal arrangement, and their legal and beneficial owners, any information and documents necessary to identify and verify their beneficial owners, including proofs of existence and ownership, resolutions of the board of directors and minutes of their meetings, partnership agreements, trust deeds, power of attorney or other contractual agreements and documentation.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) a statement accompanied by a justification, that there is no beneficial owner or that the beneficial owner(s) could not be identified and verified;

(a) a statement by the corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangement accompanied by a legitimate justification and supporting documents, that there is no beneficial owner or that the beneficial owner(s) could not be identified and verified pursuant to Articles 42 and 43 of Regulation ... [insert reference to AML Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)], and the rules according to which profit or shares are allocated within the corporate or legal entity;

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall ensure that the information referred to in the first subparagraph, point (a), is available to FIUs, AMLA, competent authorities, self-regulatory bodies and obliged entities.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The Commission is empowered to adopt, by means of implementing acts, the format for the submission of beneficial ownership information to the central register. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 54(2).

4. By ... [one year after the date of entry into force of this Directive] the Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, the format for the submission of beneficial ownership information as referred to in article 44 of Regulation ... [please insert reference to the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)] to the central register, including a checklist of minimum requirements for information to be examined by the registrant. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 54(2).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Member States shall require that the beneficial ownership information held in the central registers is adequate, accurate and up-to-date. For that purpose, Member State shall apply at least the following requirements:

5. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the beneficial ownership information held in the central registers is adequate, accurate and up-to-date, and shall put in place mechanisms to that effect. For that purpose, Member States shall apply at least the following requirements:

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(-a) entities in charge of the central registers shall verify, at the time beneficial ownership information is submitted and on a regular basis thereafter, that such information is adequate, accurate and up to date.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) obliged entities shall report to the entity in charge of the central registers any discrepancies they find between the beneficial ownership information available in the central registers and the beneficial ownership information available to them pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation].

(a) obliged entities shall report to the entity in charge of the central registers any discrepancies they find between the beneficial ownership information available in the central registers and the beneficial ownership information available to them pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation], and shall transmit to the central register the relevant beneficial ownership information they have gathered.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) competent authorities, if appropriate and to the extent that this requirement does not interfere unnecessarily with their functions, shall report to the entity in charge of the central registers any discrepancies they find between beneficial ownership information available in the central registers and the beneficial ownership information available to them.

(b) competent authorities shall report to the entity in charge of the central registers any discrepancies they find between beneficial ownership information available in the central registers and the beneficial ownership information available to them.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5a. Member States shall ensure that the entities in charge of the central registers verify whether beneficial ownership information held in the registers concerns persons or entities designated in relation to targeted financial sanctions. Such verification shall take place immediately upon the designation in relation to targeted financial sanctions and at regular intervals. The entities in charge of the beneficial ownership registers shall include specific mentions in the registers with regard to information on a corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangement where:

(a)  a corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangement included in a register is subject to targeted financial sanctions;

(b) a corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangement included in a register is controlled by a person subject to targeted financial sanctions;

(c)  a beneficial owner of a corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangement is subject to targeted financial sanctions;

The specific mention referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall remain available to any person or entity granted access under Articles 11 and 12 in the central register until the concerned targeted financial sanctions are removed.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5b. By ... [four years after the date of entry into force of this Directive] AMLA shall issue guidelines on the methods and procedures to be employed by entities in charge of central registers to verify beneficial ownership information and by obliged entities and competent authorities to identify and report discrepancies regarding beneficial ownership information.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central registers takes appropriate actions to cease the discrepancies, including amending the information included in the central registers where the entity is able to identify and verify the beneficial ownership information. A specific mention of the fact that there are discrepancies reported shall be included in the central registers and visible at least to competent authorities and obliged entities.

7. Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central registers takes, within 30 working days after the reporting of a discrepancy, appropriate actions to cease the discrepancies and ensure up-to-date information, including amending the information included in the central registers where the entity is able to identify and verify the beneficial ownership information. A specific mention of the fact that there are discrepancies reported shall be included in the central registers until the discrepancy is resolved and be visible to any person or entity granted access under Articles 11 and 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. In the case of corporate and other legal entities, Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central beneficial ownership register is empowered to carry out checks, including on-site investigations at the premises or registered office of the legal entity, in order to establish the current beneficial ownership of the entity and to verify that the information submitted to the central register is accurate, adequate and up-to-date. The right of the central register to verify such information shall not be restricted, obstructed or precluded in any manner.

8. In the case of corporate and other legal entities, and legal arrangements where the trustee is an obliged entity as listed in Article 3, point (3)(a), (b) or (c) of Regulation [please insert reference to - proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)], Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central beneficial ownership register is empowered to carry out checks, including on-site investigations at the premises or registered office of the legal entity, at the premises of relevant obliged entities as listed in Article 3, point (3)(a), (b) or (c), of Regulation ... [please insert reference to nti-Money Laundering Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)] in accordance with national law and at the premises of the legal entities’ representatives in the Union, in order to establish the current beneficial ownership of the entity and to verify that the information submitted to the central register is accurate, adequate and up-to-date. The right of the central register to verify such information shall not be restricted, obstructed or precluded in any manner, and the central register shall be empowered to request information from other registers, including in other Member States and third countries, in particular through the establishment of cooperation agreements.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8a. Member States shall ensure that entities in charge of central registers have at their disposal necessary automated technology to carry out verifications as referred to in paragraphs 5 and 5a. Those verifications shall include, in particular, cross-checking beneficial ownership information with other public and private databases to which they have access under national law for the prevention, detection or investigation of money laundering or terrorist financing, checking supporting documents referred to in paragraph 3, detecting errors and inconsistencies, identifying patterns associated with legal entities being used for illicit purposes and carrying out occasional sample testing using a risk based approach. Those verifications shall be carried out in a way that safeguards fundamental rights, includes human oversight and avoids discriminatory outcomes.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8b. Member States shall ensure that where a verification as referred to in paragraph 5 or 5a is carried out at the time of submission of beneficial ownership information, and it leads an entity in charge of a central register to conclude that there are inconsistencies or errors in the beneficial ownership information or that the beneficial ownership information otherwise does not fulfil the requirements laid down in paragraph 5, that entity in charge of a central register is able to withhold and suspend the certification of registration until the beneficial owner information provided is in order.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8c. Member States shall ensure that where a verification as referred to in paragraph 5 or 5a is carried out after the submission of beneficial ownership information, and it leads an entity in charge of a central register to conclude that there are inconsistencies or errors in the beneficial ownership information or that the beneficial ownership information otherwise does not fulfil the requirements laid down in paragraph 5, national competent authorities ensure that the legal consequence attached to the registration does not follow until the beneficial owner information provided is in order.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central register is empowered to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive measures or sanctions for failures to provide the register with accurate, adequate and up-to-date information about their beneficial ownership.

9. Member States shall ensure that the entity in charge of the central register is empowered to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive measures or sanctions for failures to provide the register with accurate, adequate and up-to-date information about their beneficial ownership. Sanctions shall include monetary penalties. Member States shall ensure that in the event of repeated failure to provide up-to-date, accurate and adequate information, national authorities ensure that appropriate sanctions follow. In the event of repeated failures to provide up-to-date, accurate and adequate information, sanctions shall be increased to the level necessary to ensure compliance. In such event, the entity in charge of the central register shall notify the national authorities competent for imposing appropriate sanctions about the repeated failures.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9a. By ... [two years after entry into force of this Directive], AMLA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards setting out indicators to classify the level of gravity of breaches and criteria for such repeated failures and submit them to the Commission for adoption. The Commission is empowered to supplement this Directive by adopting those regulatory standards in accordance with Articles 38 to 41 of Regulation ... [please insert reference to the AMLA Regulation - 2021/0240(COD)].

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10. Member States shall ensure that if, in the course of the checks carried out pursuant to this Article, or in any other way, the entities in charge of the beneficial ownership registers discover facts that could be related to money laundering or to terrorist financing, they shall promptly inform the FIU.

10. Member States shall ensure that if, in the course of the checks carried out pursuant to this Article, or in any other way, the entities in charge of the beneficial ownership registers discover facts that could be related to money laundering or to terrorist financing, they shall inform the competent FIU within 48 hours of discovering such facts

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10a. Member States shall ensure that entities in charge of central registers are operationally independent and autonomous and have the authority and capacity to carry out their functions free of political, government or industry influence or interference and that staff of such entities are of high integrity and appropriately skilled and maintain high professional standards, including standards of confidentiality and data protection and standards addressing conflicts of interest.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10 b. Member States shall ensure that entities in charge of central registers have in place policies and procedures to ensure that their employees or managers who report breaches of the requirements set out in this Article are legally protected in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 from being exposed to threats, retaliatory or hostile action and, in particular, adverse or discriminatory employment action.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

12. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be available through the national registers and through the system of interconnection of central beneficial ownership registers for at least five years and no more than 10 years after the corporate or other legal entity has been struck off from the register.

12. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be available through the national registers and through the system of interconnection of central beneficial ownership registers for at least five years and no more than 10 years after the corporate or other legal entity has been struck off from the register. Member States may, without prejudice to national criminal law on evidence applicable to ongoing criminal investigations and legal proceedings, allow or require the retention of such information or documents in concrete cases for a further maximum period of five years where the necessity and proportionality of such further retention have been established  by the authorities competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of suspected money laundering or terrorist financing in accordance with applicable rules.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

12a. AMLA shall periodically conduct peer reviews of some or all of the activities of entities in charge of central beneficial ownership registers for the purposes of assessing whether such entities have in place mechanisms to fulfil the requirements set out in this Article and whether such entities carry out checks effectively in order to establish that beneficial ownership information held in the registers is accurate, adequate and up to date

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

General rules regarding access to beneficial ownership registers by competent authorities, self-regulatory bodies and obliged entities

General rules regarding access to beneficial ownership registers by competent authorities, self-regulatory bodies, obliged entities and AMLA

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have timely, unrestricted and free access to the information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10, without alerting the entity or arrangement concerned.

1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have timely, unrestricted and free access to the information held in the central registers referred to in Article 10, including the interconnected central registers, without alerting the entity or arrangement concerned

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Access to the central registers referred to in Article 10 shall be granted to FIUs, supervisory authorities, public authorities with designated responsibilities for combating money laundering or terrorist financing, as well as tax authorities and authorities that have the function of investigating or prosecuting money laundering, its predicate offences and terrorist financing, tracing and seizing or freezing and confiscating criminal assets. Self-regulatory bodies shall be granted access to the registers when performing supervisory functions.

2. Access to the central registers referred to in Article 10 shall be granted to FIUs, AMLA, supervisory authorities, public authorities with designated responsibilities for combating money laundering or terrorist financing, public procurement agencies as well as tax authorities and authorities that have the function of investigating or prosecuting money laundering, its predicate offences and terrorist financing, tracing and seizing or freezing and confiscating assets. Self-regulatory bodies shall be granted access to the registers when performing supervisory functions.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall ensure that, when taking customer due diligence measures in accordance with Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation], obliged entities have timely access to the information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10.

3. Member States shall ensure that, when taking customer due diligence measures in accordance with Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation], obliged entities and agents or external service providers to which tasks are outsourced in accordance with Regulation ... [please refer to AML Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)] have timely, unrestricted and free access to the information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10.

In accordance with Chapter IV of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the obliged entity shall remain fully liable for any action of agents or external service providers to which activities are outsourced when those agents or external service providers access the information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10.

The obliged entity shall obtain prior authorisation from the data protection supervisory authority in relation to access to a register by an agent or external service provider for the duration of the outsourcing contract between the obliged entities and the agents or external service providers. The data protection supervisory authority shall respond in a timely manner and no later than within two months. If no response is given within that time limit, access shall be deemed to have been granted.

The entity in charge of the central register shall suspend access to the register to obliged entities or agents or external service providers to which tasks are outsourced, in the event of [a risk of a serious failure to comply with the purposes for which access was granted] and or to comply with their obligations under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 ]. Member States shall ensure that such a suspension can be reviewed by the relevant administrative or judicial authorities.”

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. By [3 months after the date of transposition of this Directive], Member States shall notify to the Commission the list of competent authorities and self-regulatory bodies and the categories of obliged entities that were granted access to the registers and the type of information available to obliged entities, as well as the beneficial ownership information that can be accessed by the public pursuant to Article 12. Member States shall update such notification when changes to the list of competent authorities or categories of obliged entities or to the extent of access granted to obliged entities or the public occur. The Commission shall make the information on the access by competent authorities and obliged entities, including any change to it, available to the other Member States.

4. By [3 months after the date of transposition of this Directive], Member States shall notify to the Commission the list of competent authorities and self-regulatory bodies and the categories of obliged entities that were granted access to the registers and the type of information available to obliged entities. Member States shall update such notification when changes to the list of competent authorities or categories of obliged entities. The Commission shall make the information on the access by competent authorities and obliged entities, including any change to it, available to the other Member States and AMLA.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Specific access rules to beneficial ownership registers for the public

Specific access rules to beneficial ownership registers for the persons having a legitimate interest

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall ensure that any member of the general public has access to the following information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10:

1. Member States shall ensure that any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest in accessing information on beneficial owners has access, in the central registers referred to in Article 10, including the interconnected central registers, to:

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) in the case of legal entities, at least the name, the month and year of birth and the country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner as well as the nature and extent of the beneficial interest held;

(a) in the case of corporate entities, legal entities or legal arrangements, the name, month and year of birth, the country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner, the nature and extent of the beneficial interest held, the date the beneficial owner became beneficial owner, data on the past beneficial owners, and contact details of the corporate entity, legal entity, express trust or similar legal arrangements, or contact details of the trustee or person holding an equivalent position.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) in case of express trusts or similar legal arrangements, the name, the month and year of birth and the country of residence and nationality of the beneficial owner as well as the nature and extent of the beneficial interest held, provided that a legitimate interest can be demonstrated.

(b) where no beneficial owner has been identified, the justification provided for there being no beneficial owner or for it not being possible to identify the beneficial owner, and the name, month and year of birth, country of residence and nationality of the natural person or persons who hold the position of senior managing official or senior managing officials in the corporate or legal entity, as referred to in Article 10(3)(b).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States may choose to make beneficial ownership information held in their central registers available to the public on the condition of authentication using electronic identification means and relevant trust services as set out in Regulation (EU) 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council46 and the payment of a fee, which shall not exceed the administrative costs of making the information available, including costs of maintenance and developments of the register.

2. At least persons that belong to any of the following groups shall be considered to have a legitimate interest in accessing the information on beneficial owners as referred to in paragraph 1:

(a)  persons acting for the purpose of journalism, reporting or any other form of expression in the media that are connected with, or that intend to carry out such activities related to, the prevention or combating of money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing;

(b)  civil society organisations that are connected with, or that intend to carry out activities related to, the prevention and combating of money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing;

(c)  higher education institutions as defined in Article 2, point 19, of Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, that carry out, or that intend to carry out, activities connected with to the prevention and combating of money laundering, or its predicate offences or terrorist financing;

(d)  persons who are likely to enter into transactions or business relationships with a corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangement;

(e)  persons who are likely to perform a task or engage in a business relationship that requires them to assess whether a corporate entity, legal entity or legal arrangements, or its beneficial owner is subject to targeted financial sanctions;

(f)  financial institutions, external agents and service providers and authorities in so far as they are involved in the prevention or combating of money laundering, or its predicate offences or terrorist financing, and do not already have such access pursuant to Article 11.

__________________

__________________

46 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73).

1a Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+: the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 (OJ L 189, 28.5.2021, p. 1).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. Members States shall ensure timely access for natural and legal persons belonging to the categories set out in paragraph 2 to information as referred to in paragraph 1 following the assessment by the authorities in charge of the central registers, such assessment to be done individually on the basis of a declaration of honour and proof of identification submitted to those authorities. If no decision on access has been communicated in writing to the person applying for access within ten days of the submission of the declaration of honour and the proof of identification, access shall be considered to have been granted and shall be given automatically.

For natural or legal person claiming legitimate interest based on grounds other than belonging to one of the categories set out in paragraph 2, access to information as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted following the assessment by the authorities in charge of the central registers as to whether the requirement for having legitimate interest is met. That assessment shall be done on a case by case basis, taking into account the grounds provided in the access request and the supporting documents. Those authorities shall take a decision to grant or refuse access in a timely manner and in any event within one month of the submission of the access request.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2b. A decision granting access as referred to in paragraph 2a, first subparagraph, including a decision given automatically ten days after submission of a declaration of honour and proof of identification, shall be valid for a period of at least 2,5 years. Such a decision shall be recognised as proof of having a legitimate interest in all Member States and therefore give access to information as referred to in paragraph 1 for the same period in all Member States.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2c. Member States may decide to automatically renew access to information granted under paragraph 2a. Natural and legal person having been granted such access shall notify authorities in charge of the central registers of any change affecting their right to access information as referred to in paragraph 1.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2d. In case of proven or documented abuse or ongoing judicial proceedings related to the illegal use of their systems by a person having been granted access under paragraph 2a, authorities in charge of the central registers in any of the Member States concerned may immediately suspend or revoke that person’s access to their own registers, notify the competent authorities in other Member States concerned and submit a request for suspension of access to the authority that granted the access right. Any notification or request for suspension in view of ongoing judicial proceedings shall be duly justified by the requesting competent authority. A revocation or suspension shall be communicated to the affected person in writing, through the communication channel used for the submissions referred to in paragraph1a, in a timely manner and no later than ten days from the decision to revoke or suspend. Member States shall provide for appropriate legal remedies in case of revocation or suspension of access and communicate them to the affected person.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2e. Member States shall provide for appropriate measures, in accordance with national law, in case of a false declaration of honour submitted to authorities in charge of the central registers for the purpose of gaining access to as referred to in paragraph 1.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2f. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to issue a common request form and template for the declaration of honour referred to in paragraph 2a with regard to professional qualifications, professional experience, public activity, membership in any relevant professional association or similar body, or any other valid documentation allowing for the verification that a natural or legal person belong to the categories set out in paragraph 2 as well as proof of identification such as travel or identity documents, the person identification data as defined in Article 3, point (3), of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, or any other valid documentation allowing the identification of the natural or legal person requesting access. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 54(2).

The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to specify the common format of the decision referred to in paragraph 2a, with a view to ensure mutual recognition of those decisions by the central registers in other Member States as referred to in paragraph 2b. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 54(2).

__________________

1a Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2g. The information set out in paragraph 1, point (a), shall not be used, directly or indirectly, for marketing or commercial purposes, except when those purposes relate directly to the reasons why a legitimate interest in accessing information on beneficial owners has been found to exist. Member States shall make access to that information subject to a signed statement to that effect.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2h. Member States may choose to make beneficial ownership information held in their central registers available on the condition of authentication using electronic identification means and relevant trust services as defined in Article 3, points (2) and (16), respectively, of Regulation (EU) 910/2014 and the payment of a fee which shall not exceed the direct costs of making the information available. Where the access to beneficial ownership information is provided online or in electronic form, Member States shall not require the payment of any fees.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2i. Member States shall not impose legal or practical restrictions to access to information as referred to in paragraph 1 on the basis of the geographical establishment or location, legal or organisational status or nationality of the natural or legal person requesting access, or of the means or conditions of authentication.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2j. Member States shall ensure that authorities in charge of the central registers keep a log of when a person accesses the register. Member States shall ensure that authorities in charge of the central registers do not monitor or keep any log regarding the specific information in the register consulted by persons having been granted access under paragraph 2a.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 12a

Searches in Beneficial Ownership Register

1.  The European Central Platform shall serve as a central search service, making available all information related to beneficial ownership.

2.  Competent authorities, AMLA, self-regulatory bodies and obliged entities shall be able to make searches of beneficial ownership information as set out in Article 11 through the European Central Platform. Persons having legitimate interest pursuant to Article 12 shall be able to make searches of the beneficial ownership information as set out in Article 12 through the European Central Platform.

3. The following harmonised search criteria shall be useable for searches referred to in paragraph 2:

(a)  with regard to companies or other legal entities, trusts or similar arrangements alternatively:

(i)  name of the legal entity, trust or similar arrangement;

(ii)  national registration number.

(b)  with regard to persons as beneficial owners alternatively:

(i)  first name and surname of the beneficial owner;

(ii)  month and year of birth of the beneficial owner;

(c)  with regard to nominee shareholders and nominee directors first name and surname of the nominee shareholder and nominee director; 

Member States may make available further search criteria in additio to the ones set out in the first subparagraph..

3.  The European Central Platform shall allow the reporting of discrepancies as referred to in Article 10(5).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In exceptional circumstances to be laid down in national law, where the access referred to in Articles 11(3) and 12(1) would expose the beneficial owner to disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, harassment, violence or intimidation, or where the beneficial owner is a minor or otherwise legally incapable, Member States may provide for an exemption from such access to all or part of the personal information on the beneficial owner on a case-by-case basis. Member States shall ensure that those exemptions are granted upon a detailed evaluation of the exceptional nature of the circumstances. Rights to an administrative review of the decision granting an exemption and to an effective judicial remedy shall be guaranteed. A Member State that has granted exemptions shall publish annual statistical data on the number of exemptions granted and reasons stated and report the data to the Commission.

In exceptional circumstances to be laid down in national law, where the access referred to in Articles 11(3) and 12(1) would expose the beneficial owner to disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, harassment, violence or intimidation, Member States may shall provide for an exemption from such access to all or part of the personal information on the beneficial owner on a case-by-case basis. Member States shall ensure that those exemptions are granted upon a detailed evaluation of the exceptional nature of the circumstances. Rights to an administrative review of the decision granting an exemption and to an effective judicial remedy shall be guaranteed. Member States shall ensure that exemptions granted are reviewed every two years. A Member State that has granted exemptions shall publish annual statistical data on the number of exemptions granted and reasons stated and report the data to the Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Bank account information

Bank account and custodial crypto-asset wallet information

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Bank account registers and electronic data retrieval systems

Bank account and custodial crypto-asset wallet registers and electronic data retrieval systems

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall put in place centralised automated mechanisms, such as a central registers or central electronic data retrieval systems, which allow the identification, in a timely manner, of any natural or legal persons holding or controlling payment accounts and bank accounts identified by IBAN, as defined by Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 , and safe-deposit boxes held by a credit institution within their territory.

1. Member States shall put in place centralised automated mechanisms, such as a central registers or central electronic data retrieval systems, which allow the identification, in a timely manner, of any natural or legal persons holding or controlling payment accounts and bank accounts identified by IBAN, as defined by Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council47 , including virtual IBAN accounts, securities accounts and safe-deposit boxes held by a credit or financial institution within their territory, and custodial crypto-asset wallets.

__________________

__________________

47 Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22).

47 Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22).

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Member States shall ensure that the information held in the centralised mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 is directly accessible in an immediate and unfiltered manner to national FIUs. The information shall also be accessible to national competent authorities for fulfilling their obligations under this Directive.

2. Member States shall ensure that the information held in the centralised mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 is directly accessible in an immediate and unfiltered manner to national FIUs and AMLA. The information shall also be accessible in a timely manner to national competent authorities for fulfilling their obligations under this Directive and Regulation ... [add reference to AML Regulation - 2021/0239(COD)].

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) for the customer-account holder and any person purporting to act on behalf of the customer: the name, complemented by either the other identification data required under Article 18(1) of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] or a unique identification number;

(a) for the customer-account and securities-account holder and any person purporting to act on behalf of the customer: the name, complemented by either the other identification data required under Article 18(1) of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] or a unique identification number