Revision of AMLD4 ignoring EDPS opinion on privacy

Europe is working on the revision of the 4th European anti-money-laundering directive (AMLD4), through the so-called 5th European anti-money-laundering directive (AMLD5). AMLD5 is expectied to be adopted this month.
The European Parliament published this summary, in which important sources of information are mentioned, including the December 2017 compromise text of AMLD5.

One element of AMLD5 is the public accessability of beneficial ownership information, thus neglecting the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), “Opinion on a Commission Proposal amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 and Directive 2009/101/EC Access to beneficial ownership information and data protection implications“, that advises:

Designed access to beneficial ownership information in compliance with the principle of proportionality, inter alia, ensuring access only to entities who are in charge of enforcing the law.

The final paragraph of the EDPS opinion runs as follows:

66. We have reviewed the Proposal and we consider that it should have:
* Ensured that any processing of personal data serve a legitimate, specific and well identified purpose and be linked to it by necessity and proportionality. The data controller performing personal data processing shall be identified and accountable for the compliance with data protection rules.
* Ensured that any limitation on the exercise of the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection be provided for by law, respect their essence and, subject to the principle of proportionality, enacted only if necessary to achieve objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
* Ensured a proper assessment of the proportionality of the policy measures proposed in relation to the purposes sought, as emergency-based measures that are acceptable to tackle the risk of terrorist attacks might result excessive when applied to prevent the risk of tax evasion.
* Maintained into place safeguards that would have granted a certain degree of proportionality (for example, in setting the conditions for access to information on financial transactions by FIUs).
* Designed access to beneficial ownership information in compliance with the principle of proportionality, inter alia, ensuring access only to entities who are in charge of enforcing the law.

Over Ellen Timmer, advocaat ondernemingsrecht @Pellicaan

Verbonden aan Pellicaan Advocaten, http://www.pellicaan.nl/, kantoor Rotterdam, telefoon 088-6272287, fax 088-6272280, e-mail ellen.timmer@pellicaan.nl ||| Weblogs: algemeen: https://ellentimmer.com/ || modernisering ondernemingsrecht: http://flexbv.wordpress.com/ ||| Motto: goede bedoelingen rechtvaardigen geen slechte regels
Dit bericht werd geplaatst in English - posts in English on this blog, Europa, Financieel recht, onder meer Wft, Wtt, Fraude, witwasbestrijding, Wwft, Grondrechten, rechtsstaat e.d., ICT, privacy, e-commerce, Ubo-register en getagged met , , , , , . Maak dit favoriet permalink.

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google photo

Je reageert onder je Google account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s