2018年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Study_on_an_EU_initiative_for_a_restriction_on_payments_in_cash_284页_4mb

Summary of the Study on an EU Initiative for a Restriction on Payments in Cash

Core Content

This report, commissioned by the European Commission, DG ECFIN, evaluates the potential impacts of an EU-wide initiative to restrict cash payments. The study focuses on the effects of such a measure on illegal activities (including terrorist financing and money laundering), tax evasion, the internal market, enforcement and compliance costs, economic freedom, privacy, and vulnerable groups. It compares two main policy options: a prohibition on cash payments above a certain threshold and a declaration obligation for high-value cash payments.

Main Viewpoints

1. Role of Cash in the EU

• Cash remains a widely used payment method in the EU, particularly in smaller transactions.
• It is especially prevalent in southern euro area countries and among older and male consumers.
• Cash is valued for its anonymity, convenience, and lack of reliance on digital infrastructure.

2. Reasons for Cash Payment Restrictions

• Combating illegal activities: Cash is often used in crimes such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and tax evasion.
• Internal Market distortions: Divergent national cash restrictions lead to "forum shopping" where illegal activities are displaced to countries with less stringent rules.
• Need for harmonization: The EU seeks to create a unified framework to prevent these issues and ensure fair competition.

Key Findings

1. Impact on Illegal Activities

• Terrorist financing: Cash restrictions have limited impact due to the small amounts typically involved. Neither prohibition nor declaration obligation would significantly affect terrorist financing.
• Money laundering: A restriction or declaration obligation would complicate money laundering through high-value goods. A prohibition is more effective than a declaration in reducing the anonymity of transactions. The lowest threshold (EUR 1,000) is most effective in curbing money laundering, as it covers more transactions.
• Tax evasion: Cash restrictions are more effective than declaration obligations in reducing tax evasion, as they shift the responsibility to both buyers and sellers, not just the seller. A higher threshold is less effective, as most tax evasion involves small amounts.

2. Internal Market

• Harmonizing cash restrictions at the EU level would reduce distortions in the Internal Market.
• Sector-specific exceptions could be allowed, but general exemptions (e.g., for non-nationals) would reduce the effectiveness of the measure.
• A high threshold (EUR 10,000) is expected to have minimal additional costs at the EU level.

3. Cost Impacts

• Enforcement costs: Not fully quantifiable, but a declaration obligation is more costly to implement than a prohibition, especially at lower thresholds.
• Compliance costs: Minimal for most businesses, as cash transactions at various thresholds are already limited. However, cash-intensive sectors would face significant compliance costs under a declaration obligation.

4. Economic Freedom and Privacy

• A declaration obligation is preferred over a prohibition to minimize interference with economic freedom and privacy.
• Lower thresholds (e.g., EUR 1,000) negatively impact economic freedom and privacy more than higher thresholds (e.g., EUR 5,000 or 10,000).

5. Vulnerable Groups

• The impact on vulnerable groups is expected to be minimal, as they generally do not engage in high-value transactions.
• However, access to information and targeted support are crucial for their inclusion in the system.

6. Transactions Concerned

• B2B and B2C transactions should be covered by the measure.
• C2C transactions are not recommended due to enforcement difficulties and potential infringement on economic freedom and privacy.

Policy Options

Recommendations

• A prohibition is more effective in reducing illegal activities and internal market distortions, especially at lower thresholds.
• However, declaration obligations are preferred from the perspective of economic freedom and privacy.
• Harmonization of cash restrictions across the EU is essential to prevent forum shopping and ensure fair competition.
• Sector-specific exceptions should be considered to address different levels of risk.
• C2C transactions should be excluded from the measure due to enforcement challenges and unnecessary restrictions.

Conclusion

• A prohibition on high-value cash payments is more effective in addressing the issues of illegal activities and internal market distortions.
• However, it comes with higher compliance and enforcement costs.
• A declaration obligation is a less restrictive alternative that can still contribute to the fight against money laundering and tax evasion, provided it is enforced effectively.
• The lowest threshold (EUR 1,000) is most effective in combating illegal activities, but higher thresholds may be more acceptable in terms of economic freedom and privacy.
• The EU should aim for a harmonized approach to cash restrictions, with careful consideration of sector-specific exceptions and the potential impact on vulnerable groups.