Response to consultation on revised Guidelines on money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF) risk factors

Go back

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to definitions.

We note that EBA/EU has chosen the term "CASP", while FATF has established and used the term "VASP" in its terminology (e.g. FATF VA Standards (2023)). It would add to better legal clarity if the same defintion could be used by rulemakers, unless there is good reason to use a different term.

Question 4: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 4.

4.61 Unusual transactions: The Guideline suggests further measures to understand background and purpose, for example by establishing the source and destination of crypto assets. Further guidance and exemplification on measures to establish source and destination of crypto assets would be welcomed! We further suggest to add to the provision that CAPS should be encouraged to cooperate with the financial institution in providing the transaction history of the customers in order to establish the source of the assets, various purchases of cryptos and the withdrawals with a unique transaction hash (which could be used to identify the final destination of the crypto asset).

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 8.

8.17 (c) - Transaction monitoring is already included in the AML/CTF controls. To perform an adequacy assessment of the respondent’s transaction monitoring tools to ensure that they are adequate for the type of business carried out is primarily like a task for the financial supervisors. A financial institution can´t obtain such in-depth infrmation regarding the respondent’s business, risks and transaction monitoring system that it can ENSURE that the tools are adequate. Provisions that are impossibe for financail institutions to fulfil will resutl in de risking. We suggest that this provision is: (i) left out since it already is included in the term AML/CTF controls, or (ii) amend “ensure” to “assess if” the transaction monitoring tools is adequate […]

Question 7: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 9.

9.21 (new provision)
KYC measures, as well av the provisions in the EBA Guidelines, should be risk-based an be only to the extent it´s motivated in each case as assessed by the relevant institution. Hence we suggest to suggestion to delete the words “at least” in the intro part of this section, i.e. before the list of customer due diligence measures, which indicates a minimum rather than exemplifying measures that may be relevant depending on the risks and circumstances in each case.

Question 9: Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to Guideline 21.

21.4 (b)iii Although this is a risk mitigating factor, we see a great incentive that this will be used by CASP:s as a single low-risk factor: as long as the transactions are coming from or going to a bank account other high risk indications will be ignored by the CASP, who assumes the bank will manage the risks. This is in practice common already and is an explanation of why banks sometimes are reluctant to onboard certain types of customers. EBA should point out that each obliged entity in a chain of transactions have to manage the risk that occur within the obliged entitie´s scope of business.

Name of the organization

The Swedish Bankers´Association