EBA欧洲银行-BSG-response-to-Consultation-Paper-28EBA-JC-2015-061292022-January-2016_5页_211kb

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Summary on EBA/JC/2015/061 Consultation Paper

Core Content

The European Banking Authority (EBA) Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has provided detailed comments and replies on the Joint Consultation Paper EBA/JC/2015/061, which outlines Guidelines on the Characteristics of a Risk-Based Approach to AML/CFT Supervision and the Steps to Be Taken When Considering Supervision on a Risk-Sensitive Basis. These guidelines are based on the mandates from Directive (EU) 2015/849 and aim to promote a common understanding of the risk-based approach to anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) across the European Union.

The guidelines are directed at both credit and financial institutions and competent authorities, offering guidance on how institutions should assess the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing in individual business relationships and occasional transactions. The focus is on enabling firms to apply risk-sensitive customer due diligence (CDD) measures in line with the directive's requirements.

Main Views and Key Points

a. Effectiveness of Guidelines for Firms

• The guidelines are partially conducive to firms adopting a risk-based, proportionate, and effective AML/CFT framework.
• Some aspects of the guidelines, such as the collection of beneficial ownership information, are not sufficiently risk-sensitive.
• There is a lack of clarity regarding the source of funds for PEPs (Politically Exposed Persons), particularly when the UBO is not closely involved with the client.
• The term "jurisdiction to which the customer or beneficial owner has relevant personal links" requires clarification.
• The assumption that non-face-to-face business is high risk is questionable, especially with the development of secure e-IDs and the digital agenda.
• The guidelines do not clearly address how they relate to international standards such as those from FATF, Wolfsberg, and the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group.
• There is a need for more detailed guidance on the consequences of non-compliance by competent authorities, especially for firms that follow the guidelines.

b. Effectiveness for Competent Authorities

• The guidelines could support competent authorities in monitoring compliance with AML/CFT requirements.
• However, the generality of the guidelines may lead to ambiguities in their application, particularly when local regulations differ.
• There is a lack of clarity regarding enhanced due diligence (EDD) expectations and how risk-based assessments can be applied in these contexts, especially for domestic PEPs, their family members, and correspondent banking.
• The role of advising and confirming banks in trade finance should be clarified from a due diligence perspective.
• The simplified due diligence (SDD) measures mentioned in the guidelines, such as using source or destination of funds, may confuse firms as the Directive does not yet set minimum standards for SDD.

c. Sector Classification Approach

• The guidelines in Title III are organized by types of business, which the BSG considers reasonable in this context.
• The BSG suggests that legally-driven classification based on specific directives (e.g., for asset management and investment services) is preferable in general.
• However, the proposed approach is seen as necessary since not all suggested sectors are covered by specific directives, such as trade finance.

Conclusion

The EBA Banking Stakeholder Group generally supports the risk-based approach outlined in the guidelines but emphasizes the need for greater clarity and specificity in several areas. These include beneficial ownership, PEP-related CDD, correspondent banking, and how the guidelines relate to international standards. The group also highlights the importance of risk-sensitive application and the need for further clarification on the implications of non-compliance by competent authorities.