New AML-proposals European Commission show little originality

As expected the European Commission is continuing on the unoriginal path it is walking in regard of anti-money laundering (AML) and countering terrorist financing (CFT). It keeps believing in the highly inefficient one-size-fits-all systems, that cause a heavy burden for the ‘obliged entities’ and that are impracticable even for large companies such as banks. It is bringing near a surveillance society in which every citizen and organisation/company is eyeing its relations with suspicion. Discriminatory practices will increase.

The proposals contain many fundamental changes, e.g. to the beneficial ownership rules that will also apply to certain non-EU legal entities and the harmonisation of identification of beneficial owners. One of the major flaws in the concepts, is that legislation is changing too quickly and that obliged entities are unable to follow and implement these changes.

Interestingly the Commission tries to sell the new rules to obliged entities, saying the new proposals will ease AML/CFT compliance for obliged entities, which is of course not true.

It looks as if the quay will have to turn the ship.


More information:

European Commission:

Media coverage:
In the media only some aspects of the proposals were covered, like the EU-wide limit of €10,000 on large cash payments, that might cause major problems in those EU-countries that do not have advanced payment-systems like the Netherlands. Journalists do not seem aware that Europe is preparing a surveillance society.


Addition 13 August 2021
Comments Ian Ross on LinkedIn on FATF post regarding beneficial ownership:

Creating lists for the sake of creating lists. Out of date in no time. Creating an eternal compliance management process of chasing information and changes to companies ownership structures that is never verified (time? resources?). Companies House, the UK ’s biggest professional enabler may as well not exist; they have allowed thousands to slip through the net with no chance of any investigation (and how much money have those companies laundered via the UK)?
Lists that hide the guilty amongst the innocenent, no metrics of why a company/owner should be deemed as involved in criminal activity (Panama papers style).. compliance inconsistencies in jurisdictions who understand and apply ‘the lists’ differently. So tick-box due diligence and KYC beckons more than ever.

A so-called ‘international standard’ that is flawed from an organisation barking on about transparency that creates poltically-motivated and biased ‘mutual evaluation reports’. But what is of note that this ‘standard’ will likely bring with it punitive measures, ‘on the watch list’ who don’t kow-tow to the FATF.

Over Ellen Timmer, advocaat ondernemingsrecht @Pellicaan

Verbonden aan Pellicaan Advocaten,, kantoor Rotterdam, telefoon 088-6272287, fax 088-6272280, e-mail ||| Weblogs: algemeen: || modernisering ondernemingsrecht: ||| 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. en getagged met , , , , , , , . Maak dit favoriet permalink.

Geef een reactie

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

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google photo

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


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

Facebook foto

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

Verbinden met %s