Response to consultation on Guidelines on preventing the abuse of funds and certain crypto-assets transfers for ML/TF (Travel rule Guidelines)
Question 1. Do you agree with the proposed provisions? If you do not agree, please explain how you think these provisions should be amended, and set out why they should be amended. Please provide evidence of the impact these provisions would have if they were maintained as drafted'?
Paragraph 10:
The requirement that a PSP should be fully capable of transmitting and receiving the information required under regulation (EU) 2023/1113 might be hard to fulfil as in certain schemes, for example transmissions in accordance with the EPC Rulebook, may have restrictions in the length of or numbers of characters in a message. In our opinion it should be clearly stated that this obligation applies "unless there are restrictions in the message format used". It would also be appreciated, if and when message format does not allow the full length of a message, with guidance on how the information should be prioritized. If the paragraph would be implemented as is, this would require technical implementation that would have to be aligned with relevant payment schemes.
Paragraph 22:
Paragraph 22 is referring to paragraph 13 when PSPs and/or CASPs have technical limitations. In these cases, is paragraph 13 applicable to both PSPs and CASPs? If yes, we suggest that the possibility to derogate from paragraph 10, as stated in paragraph 13, would be extended to November 2025. This, because the transition to MX messaging will occur in November 2025.
Paragraph 24:
We appreciate that the EBA has given guidance on the order of priority when providing address. However, it would be beneficial to understand what “to the extent possible” means. Is it correct understood that it is allowed to exclude listed information due to technical limitations, e.g. schemas only allowing 70 characters? If yes, what is acceptable technical limitations?
Paragraph 25:
We appreciate that the EBA has given guidance on postal addresses. However, this provision will have an operational impact as e.g. a PO Box is an official address according to Swedish law. We suggest a more flexible approach as Post Office Box numbers and virtual addresses are official addresses in some countries. If the provision remains it will have an operational impact with a longer implementation period than 30 December 2024.