EBA欧洲银行-AMLft_Swedbank_3页_94kb

Swedbank Group Summary: Response to Consultation on Regulation 1781/2006

Core Content

Swedbank Group, a leading bank in Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, with operations in Russia and Ukraine, has responded to a consultation regarding the interpretation and implementation of European Regulation 1781/2006, which mandates the provision of payer information accompanying fund transfers to payment service providers (PSPs) of payees. The bank emphasizes the importance of balancing smooth and automated payment processes with compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.

Main Views and Key Information

Question 1: Handling Incomplete Information

Swedbank supports Option B, which allows for differentiated procedures based on factors such as counterparty, payment instrument, and amount. This approach ensures that while payments can still proceed, the bank can maintain proper monitoring and investigations to ensure AML compliance.

Question 2: Holding Funds for Incomplete Information

Swedbank also supports Option B in this context. The bank currently practices crediting the beneficiary's account while simultaneously requesting additional information from the sending bank. If the information is not received, the bank may also contact the beneficiary directly. This ensures a customer-friendly process while maintaining Regulation 1781/2006 compliance.

Question 3: Criteria for Classifying Non-Compliant PSPs

Swedbank suggests using criteria a, d, and e to classify Payment Service Providers (PSPs) that regularly fail to provide required information:

• a) Level of cooperation with requests for complete information.
• d) A percentage threshold of incomplete transfers sent by a specific PSP.
• e) A percentage threshold of still incomplete transfers over a period, after a certain number of requests have been made.

These criteria help identify non-compliant PSPs without disrupting the payment process or harming customer trust.

Question 4: Restricting or Terminating Business Relationships

Swedbank opposes the creation of a coordination mechanism solely for blacklisting non-compliant PSPs. It argues that national supervisors are better equipped to monitor and take action against non-compliant PSPs, including blacklisting if necessary. Instead, the mechanism should focus on developing recommendations, procedures, and guidelines for compliance with Regulation 1781/2006. It should include European and national supervisors as well as PSP industry representatives to ensure a collaborative and effective implementation. An enforcing body composed only of supervisors is recommended to ensure regulatory compliance is upheld, not the responsibility of PSPs themselves.

Question 5: Current Practices and Payment Chain Considerations

Swedbank outlines its practice of crediting the customer's account even when information is incomplete, while requesting missing data from the sending bank. If the information is not provided, a second request is made. The bank maintains records of all queries to ensure transparency and compliance. It also highlights the importance of the payment chain, especially for small retail banks, and suggests that intermediary PSPs should be responsible for forwarding information requests from the payee's PSP to the payer's PSP. This would help address the challenges faced by smaller banks due to the involvement of intermediaries in payment processes.

Conclusion

Swedbank advocates for a balanced and flexible approach to the implementation of Regulation 1781/2006. It supports Option B for both questions 1 and 2, emphasizes the need for clear criteria to identify non-compliant PSPs, and calls for a collaborative coordination mechanism involving supervisors and industry representatives. The bank also highlights the importance of maintaining customer trust and ensuring smooth payment processes while upholding AML standards.