EBA欧洲银行-AMLft_DBA_5页_105kb

Summary of Comments from the Danish Bankers Association on the Consultation on Regulation 1781/2006

Core Content

The Danish Bankers Association has provided feedback on the consultation regarding the common understanding of obligations under European Regulation 1781/2006. The comments focus on the practical implications of the proposed text, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that avoids unnecessary administrative burdens and ensures a level playing field across the banking sector.

Main Views and Key Points

1. Obligations and Level Playing Field

• The Association is concerned that the Common Understanding may impose more restrictive obligations than the Regulation itself, leading to increased administrative costs.
• They argue that such additional requirements may not achieve the intended level playing field and could instead complicate the process of cross-border transfers.

2. Follow-up Procedures for Requests for Complete Information

• Option A (deadline and reminders) is criticized for adding unnecessary administrative burden and cost.
• Option B is preferred in principle but is deemed insufficient to resolve the issue of incomplete information, as it does not address the core problem of differing definitions of "complete information" among PSPs.
• The Association notes that the FATF threshold of €/1,000 may lead to repeated unnecessary requests for information, as many PSPs do not have the required data.

3. Identifying Regularly Failing PSPs

• The proposed criteria are considered useful and comprehensive.
• The Association emphasizes that the classification of a regularly failing PSP should be based on an absolute number of incomplete transfers, not subjective judgment.

4. Coordination Mechanism for Monitoring Failing PSPs

• They agree that a coordination mechanism involving supervisors is necessary.
• The mechanism should allow for the exchange of information between supervisors to address issues across multiple business relationships.
• In severe cases, supervisors may impose sanctions or restrict business relationships, but this should be done through a formal process involving all relevant authorities.

5. Existing Industry Practice

• No specific comments were provided on this topic.

6. Reporting to Authorities

• The Association supports documentation of procedures but urges minimizing unnecessary audits that do not add value to the process.

7. Threshold for Information Requests

• They oppose the proposed threshold-based approach, arguing that it may result in wasteful and redundant requests for information.
• The decision to request information should remain at the discretion of individual PSPs.

Issues Not Covered by the Proposal

1. Cooperation Between PSPs

• The Association highlights the lack of cooperation between PSPs in the chain of cross-border transfers.
• They suggest that intermediary PSPs should be required to forward information requests to the previous PSP to ensure a smooth flow of information.

2. Definition of Complete Information

• There is a need for a clear, common definition of "complete information" in Article 4 and 6 of the Regulation.
• Disputes often arise around whether a risk-based KYC judgment or Field 20 (Sender's reference) is sufficient to meet the requirements.

3. Risk-Based KYC Judgment

• Some PSPs may use risk-based KYC as a justification for not providing additional information.
• This creates ambiguity and potential grey zones in the interpretation of the Regulation.

4. Field 20 Sender's Reference

• Field 20 is not a unique identifier and changes with each transfer, yet some Danish banks have accepted it as sufficient information.
• Clarification is needed on whether this field meets the Regulation's requirements.

5. Automatic Validation of Transfer Messages

• The Association notes that the format of transfer messages varies, making standard automatic validation difficult.
• They advocate for more detailed guidelines to ensure consistent and accurate validation across the sector.

Recommendations

• The Common Understanding should focus on clarifying the interpretation of "complete information" rather than introducing additional filters.
• A more in-depth investigation is required to develop comprehensive guidelines that address the full range of interpretations and ensure correct validation.
• The proposal should avoid unnecessary restrictive measures that may increase administrative costs without addressing the core issues.