2009年-EBA欧洲银行管理局_3L3AMLTFCompendium_110页_719kb

3L3 Anti Money Laundering Task Force - Summary

Executive Summary

This compendium paper provides an overview of the supervisory implementation practices of the Third Money Laundering Directive (2005/60/EC) across EU Member States. It identifies divergences in supervisory practices and outlines the legal frameworks in place. The paper does not cover all obligations of the Directive, but rather focuses on customer due diligence (CDD) and customer identification requirements. The data is based on two surveys conducted by the AMLTF in 2008, which were collated and analyzed by the task force. The paper acknowledges that some Member States have not fully implemented the Directive and includes their current practices and implementation plans. It also emphasizes the importance of understanding national legal frameworks for financial institutions operating across the EU, to ensure effective cooperation and risk management.

Key Findings and Main Points

1. Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and Identification Requirements

• CDD Definition: According to the Third Money Laundering Directive, CDD includes:

  • Identifying the customer and verifying identity.
  • Identifying the beneficial owner and understanding ownership and control structures.
  • Obtaining information on the purpose and nature of the business relationship.
  • Ongoing monitoring of transactions.

• Group-Level CDD:

  • Most Member States allow the use of consolidated group information for CDD.
  • 17 Member States require a group-wide approach to CDD risk management.
  • 2 Member States are in the process of introducing such a requirement via legislation.

• Third Party Reliance:

  • Reliance on third parties is allowed in many Member States, but with variations in scope and conditions.
  • Third parties include credit institutions, financial institutions, auditors, notaries, and trust service providers.
  • Some Member States restrict reliance to specific provisions of the Directive.
  • Non-face-to-face identification by third parties is generally not accepted by 7 Member States, but is accepted by 12 with possible enhanced due diligence requirements.

• Transmission of ID Data:

  • 6 Member States require automatic transmission of ID documents.
  • 21 Member States expect transmission upon request.
  • Most require copies or references of ID documents.

• Equivalence of Third Countries:

  • 22 Member States have published national lists of equivalent third countries.
  • Some are updating their lists based on EU informal agreements.
  • 2 Member States do not have an official list.
  • 17 Member States require financial institutions to use national lists, while 7 allow them to assess equivalence independently.

• Supervision of Foreign Entities:

  • Subsidiaries and branches of foreign financial institutions are subject to local AML/CTF legislation.
  • Host supervisory authorities may inform home authorities of irregularities.
  • Some Member States consider national law fully applicable to foreign entities under the "free provision of services" regime, while others do not.

Customer Identification in Face-to-Face Situations

• Basic Data Requirements:

  • First and Last Names: Required by all 27 Member States.
  • Date of Birth: Required by 25 Member States; some require it for enhanced CDD.
  • Place of Birth: Recorded in 19 Member States; not always explicitly required.
  • Purpose of Business Relationship: Recorded in 24 Member States.
  • Residential Address: Required by 23 Member States.

• Identification Documents:

  • ID cards are widely used, but not universal.
  • Data on ID cards varies, necessitating additional documents in some cases.
  • Some Member States have secure national databases to verify customer information.

Supervisory Approaches and Divergences

• Divergences in Practice:

  • Differences in the application of CDD and identification requirements across Member States are attributed to varying legal traditions and regulatory approaches.
  • Some supervisors have more experience with risk-based approaches than others.

• Supervisory Convergence:

  • The AMLTF aims to identify areas for convergence and promote best practices.
  • The paper serves as a reference for financial institutions to understand and manage these differences.

Conclusion

This paper highlights the complexity and diversity in the implementation of the Third Money Laundering Directive across the EU. While there has been progress toward harmonization, technical differences remain. The AMLTF recommends continued efforts toward convergence and emphasizes the need for financial institutions to be aware of and adapt to these national variations. The document serves as a valuable resource for understanding the current supervisory landscape and may need updating as full implementation of the Directive progresses.