EBA欧洲银行-BSG-response-to-Consultation-Paper-28EBA-JC-2015-060292022-January-2016_4页_216kb

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Summary on EBA/JC/2015/060 Consultation Paper

Core Content

The European Banking Authority (EBA) Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has provided detailed comments on the Joint Consultation Paper EBA/JC/2015/060, which outlines Guidelines on the Characteristics of a Risk-Based Approach to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Terrorist Financing (TF) Supervision. These guidelines are part of the Joint Committee initiative of the three European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) and are based on the Directive (EU) 2015/849, specifically Articles 17, 18(4), and 48(10).

The guidelines aim to promote a common understanding of the risk-based approach to AML/CFT supervision, ensuring that supervisory resources are allocated in line with the level of risk in each jurisdiction.

Main Views and Key Points

a. Agreement with the Description of the Risk-Based Approach

• The BSG broadly agrees with the way the risk-based approach is described in the guidelines.
• They believe that focusing supervision on higher-risk firms is essential for effective AML/CFT oversight.
• However, they emphasize the need for greater transparency in how regulatory and supervisory information is shared with firms.

b. Evaluation of the Four Steps in the Guidelines

• The BSG supports the inclusion of the four steps in the guidelines as they reflect the essential components of a risk-based approach.
• They suggest that the guidelines should explicitly address the sharing of information between competent authorities and firms.
• This would allow firms to assess their own risk and align with supervisory expectations, thereby improving cooperation and consistency.

c. Concerns on Foreign Risk Factors

• The BSG raises concerns about the assessment of foreign risk factors, particularly the differences in ratings across EU competent authorities.
• This could lead to confusion and forum shopping for firms operating in multiple jurisdictions.
• They recommend that FATF assessments should be uniformly applied across all EU countries to ensure consistency and fairness.

d. Appropriateness of the Level of Detail

• The BSG believes the level of detail in the guidelines is appropriate.
• They argue that excessive detail could hinder the application of the guidelines across the diversity of financial institutions.
• They suggest that periodic reviews should involve industry stakeholders to identify areas where more or less detail is needed.

e. Impact on the Financial Services Industry

• The BSG notes that the impact assessments of the consultation papers suggest that the guidelines will have minimal costs for firms.
• However, they argue that an RBS approach may involve ongoing operational focus, leading to additional workload and resource demands.
• They recommend that the Joint Committee should acknowledge the uncertainty around cost implications and examine the experiences of jurisdictions that already apply RBS structures.

Conclusion

The BSG generally supports the risk-based approach outlined in the guidelines but calls for improvements in transparency, consistency in foreign risk assessments, and periodic reviews involving industry input. They also stress the need to better understand the cost implications of implementing the guidelines to ensure that they are practical and effective for all financial institutions across the EU.

Summary of Key Recommendations

• Enhance transparency in the sharing of regulatory and supervisory information with firms.
• Ensure uniform application of FATF assessments across all EU jurisdictions.
• Converge country risk assessments among competent authorities to avoid inconsistencies.
• Involve industry stakeholders in periodic reviews to refine the guidelines.
• Acknowledge uncertainty in cost impact assessments and consider real-world experiences of existing RBS structures.