Response to consultation on revised Guidelines on money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF) risk factors
Go back
- EBA gives more examples of factors that may contribute to increasing ML/TF risk and reducing ML/TF risk for each risk factor (guideline 21.1 to 21.7);
- a new article on screening against blacklisted addresses on blockchain to be added (guideline 21.11);
- extra EDD measures to be taken for high-risk cases, in order to verify the identity of CASP’s customers (guideline 21.12);
- EBA gives more clarification on the reason why reliance on distributed ledgers is insufficient (guideline 21.16); and
- examples of information for record keeping to be added as guideline 21.17 to give the industry a guidance.
Please see the attached file for our complete comment.
Question 1: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to definitions.
We suggest not deleting the definition of occasional transaction. Instead, we suggest keeping this definition with the addition of Regulation (EU) YYYY/XX as reference, once the Regulation on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing comes into effect. Please see the attached file for our complete comment.Question 2: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 1.
Adopting innovative technology as part of a firm’s new and pre-existing products and services can change the ML/TF risks exposed to a firm. Therefore, we suggest to add this point to the proposed guideline 1.7 letter d). Please see the attached file for our complete comment.Question 3: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 2.
N/AQuestion 4: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 4.
We suggest to expand the definition of unusual transactions (guideline 4.60). Besides, we suggest adding the examples of the elements that a firm should screen during transaction monitoring to serve as a guidance for the industry (guideline 4.74). Please see the attached file for our complete comment.Question 5: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 6.
We suggest clarifying which type of staff must follow the AML/CFT training (guideline 6.1) and that the training must be followed periodically (guideline 6.3). Please see the attached file for our complete comment.Question 6: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 8.
We suggest that for guideline 8.8, jurisdictions with no or no robust regulation on crypto assets should be considered as high risk, as the current EU third-country high risk list does not take this factor into consideration. Please see the attached file for our complete comment.Question 7: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 9.
We suggest that for guideline 9.20, EBA should clarify the type of crypto assets with the reference to MiCA Regulation (2019/1937). Besides, we suggest that EBA clarifies if a firm should only understand or should also assess the customer due diligence measures of their clients. their clients. EBA should elaborate what is exactly expected from the industry. Please see the attached file for our complete comment.Question 8: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 10, 15 and 17.
N/AQuestion 9: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 21.
We suggest that:- EBA gives more examples of factors that may contribute to increasing ML/TF risk and reducing ML/TF risk for each risk factor (guideline 21.1 to 21.7);
- a new article on screening against blacklisted addresses on blockchain to be added (guideline 21.11);
- extra EDD measures to be taken for high-risk cases, in order to verify the identity of CASP’s customers (guideline 21.12);
- EBA gives more clarification on the reason why reliance on distributed ledgers is insufficient (guideline 21.16); and
- examples of information for record keeping to be added as guideline 21.17 to give the industry a guidance.
Please see the attached file for our complete comment.