Activities of Gunnar BECK related to 2021/0240(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) 1094/2010, (EU) 1095/2010
Amendments (49)
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The efficient usage of data leads to better monitoring and compliance of firms. Therefore, both direct and indirect supervision by the Authority and supervisory authorities of all obliged entities across the system should rely on expedient access to relevant data and information about the obliged entities themselves and the supervisory actions and measures taken towards them. To that end, the Authority should establish a central AML/CFT database with information collected from all supervisory authorities, and should make such information selectively available to any supervisory authority within the system and also AML Compliance Entities. This data should also cover withdrawal of authorisation procedures, fit and proper assessments of shareholders and members of individual obliged entities as this will enable relevant authorities to duly consider possible shortcomings of specific entities and individuals that might have materialised in other Member States. The database should also include statistical information about supervisory and other public authorities involved in AML/CFT supervision. Such information would enable effective oversight by the Authority of the proper functioning and effectiveness of the AML/CFT supervisory system. The information from the database would enable the Authority to react in a timely manner to potential weaknesses and cases of non-compliance by non-selected obliged entities. Pursuant to Article 24 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/193934 , the Authority will without undue delay report to the EPPO any criminal conduct in respect of which it could exercise its competence in accordance with Article 22 and Article 25(2) and (3) of that Regulation. Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation 883/201335 , the Authority will transmit to OLAF without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. _________________ 34 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). 35 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1073/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to ensure that only the riskiest obliged entities among those with significant cross-border operations are supervised directly at the level of the Union, the assessment of their inherent risk should be harmonised. Currently, there are various national approaches and supervisory authorities use distinct benchmarks for assessment and classification of inherent ML/TF risk of obliged entities. Using these national methodologies for selection of entities for direct supervision at Union level could lead to a different playing field among them. Therefore, the Authority should be empowered to develop regulatory technical standards laying out a harmonised methodology and benchmarks for categorising the inherent ML/TF risk as low, medium, substantial, or high. The methodology should be tailored to particular types of risks and therefore should follow different categories of obliged entities which are financial institutions in accordance with the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing [OP please insert the next number for COM(2021)420]. That methodology should be sufficiently detailed and should establish specific quantitative and qualitative benchmarks considering at least the risk factors related to types of customers served, products and services offered, period of activity and geographical areas, including third country jurisdictions that obliged entities operate in or are related to. Specifically, each assessed obliged entity would have its inherent risk profile classified in each Member State where it operates in a manner consistent with the classification of any other obliged entity in the Union. The quantitative and qualitative benchmarks would allow such classification to be objective and not dependent on the discretion of a given supervisory authority in a Member State, or the discretion of the Authority.
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) Public-private partnerships (‘PPPs’) have become increasingly important cooperation and information exchange fora between FIUs, various national supervisory and law enforcement authorities and obliged entities in some Member States. Where the Authority would act as direct supervisor of selected obliged entities which are part of a PPP in any Member State, it could be beneficial for the Authority to also participate therein, on conditions determined by the relevant national public authority or authorities that set up such PPP, and with their explicit agreement. The Authority can, on its own initiative, create PPPs in cases where it considers they would be valuable for the achievement of the objectives set out in the Regulation. In such PPPs, the Authority should invite the entities it considers appropriate. The Authority can also invite AML Compliance Entities.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The efficient usage of data leads to better monitoring and compliance of firms. Therefore, both direct and indirect supervision by the Authority and supervisory authorities of all obliged entities across the system should rely on expedient access to relevant data and information about the obliged entities themselves and the supervisory actions and measures taken towards them. To that end, the Authority should establish a central AML/CFT database with information collected from all supervisory authorities, and should make such information selectively available to any supervisory authority within the system and also to AML Compliance Entities. This data should also cover withdrawal of authorisation procedures, fit and proper assessments of shareholders and members of individual obliged entities as this will enable relevant authorities to duly consider possible shortcomings of specific entities and individuals that might have materialised in other Member States. The database should also include statistical information about supervisory and other public authorities involved in AML/CFT supervision. Such information would enable effective oversight by the Authority of the proper functioning and effectiveness of the AML/CFT supervisory system. The information from the database would enable the Authority to react in a timely manner to potential weaknesses and cases of non-compliance by non-selected obliged entities. Pursuant to Article 24 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/193934 , the Authority will without undue delay report to the EPPO any criminal conduct in respect of which it could exercise its competence in accordance with Article 22 and Article 25(2) and (3) of that Regulation. Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation 883/201335 , the Authority will transmit to OLAF without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. _________________ 34 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). 35 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1073/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to ensure that only the riskiest obliged entities among those with significant cross-border operations are supervised directly at the level of the Union, the assessment of their inherent risk should be harmonised. Currently, there are various national approaches and supervisory authorities use distinct benchmarks for assessment and classification of inherent ML/TF risk of obliged entities. Using these national methodologies for selection of entities for direct supervision at Union level could lead to a different playing field among them. Therefore, the Authority should be empowered to develop regulatory technical standards laying out a harmonised methodology and benchmarks for categorising the inherent ML/TF risk as low, medium, substantial, or high. The methodology should be tailored to particular types of risks and therefore should follow different categories of obliged entities which are financial institutions in accordance with the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing [OP please insert the next number for COM(2021)420]. That methodology should be sufficiently detailed and should establish specific quantitative and qualitative benchmarks considering at least the risk factors related to types of customers served, products and services offered, period of activity and geographical areas, including third country jurisdictions that obliged entities operate in or are related to. Specifically, each assessed obliged entity would have its inherent risk profile classified in each Member State where it operates in a manner consistent with the classification of any other obliged entity in the Union. The quantitative and qualitative benchmarks would allow such classification to be objective and not dependent on the discretion of a given supervisory authority in a Member State, or the discretion of the Authority.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
(5a) ‘AML Compliance Entity’ means an entity or digital platform that fully complies with GDPR and contributes to the effective compliance with the objectives and obligations set out in this Regulation and in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2).
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Any supervisory authority or, any non-AML authority and AML Compliance Entity may address to the Authority a reasoned request for information collected pursuant to paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 that is relevant for its supervisory activities. The Authority shall assess those requests and provide the information requested by the supervisory authorities or non-AML authorities or AML Compliance Entity on a need-to-know basis and confidential basis and in a timely manner. TWhen the request is made by an Authority, the Authority shall inform the authority that has initially provided the requested information, of the identity of the requesting supervisory or other authority, the identity of an obliged entity concerned, the reason for the information request as well as whether the information has been provided to the requesting authority.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
(ca) with respect to the period of activity: in the first three years of activity.
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53
Article 53
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 79 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In case it is proven valuable, the Authority may, on its initiative, create such a PPP inviting the entities it considers appropriate, such as obliged entities and AML compliance entities.
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) Public-private partnerships (‘PPPs’) have become increasingly important cooperation and information exchange fora between FIUs, various national supervisory and law enforcement authorities and obliged entities in some Member States. Where the Authority would act as direct supervisor of selected obliged entities which are part of a PPP in any Member State, it could be beneficial for the Authority to also participate therein, on conditions determined by the relevant national public authority or authorities that set up such PPP, and with their explicit agreement. The Authority may, by its initiative, create PPPs in cases where it considers they would be valuable for the achievement of the objectives set out in the Regulation. In such PPPs, the Authority shall invite the entities it considers appropriate. The Authority may also invite AML Compliance Entities.
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
(5a) ‘AML Compliance Entity’, means an entity or digital platform that fully complies with GDPR and contributes to the effective compliance with the objectives and obligations set out in this regulation and in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1(2).
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Any supervisory authority or, any non-AML authority and AML Compliance Entity may address to the Authority a reasoned request for information collected pursuant to paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 that is relevant for its supervisory activities. The Authority shall assess those requests and provide the information requested by the supervisory authorities or non-AML authorities or AML Compliance Entity on a need-to-know basis and confidential basis and in a timely manner. TWhen the request is made by an Authority, the Authority shall inform the authority that has initially provided the requested information, of the identity of the requesting supervisory or other authority, the identity of an obliged entity concerned, the reason for the information request as well as whether the information has been provided to the requesting authority.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
(ca) with respect to the period of activity: in the first three years of activity.
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53
Article 53
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 79 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In case it is proven valuable, the Authority may, by its initiative, create such a PPP inviting the entities it considers appropriate, such as obliged entities and AML compliance entities.
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a regulation
–
–
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) To bring AML/CFT supervision to an efficient and uniform level across the Union, it is necessarypossible to provide the Authority with the following powers: direct supervision of a certain number of selected obliged entities of the financial sector; monitoring, analysis and exchange of information concerning ML/TF risks affecting internal market; coordination and oversight of AML/CFT supervisors of the financial sector; coordination and oversight of AML/CFT supervisors of the non- financial sector, including self-regulatory bodies and the coordination and support of FIUs.
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The efficient usage of data leads to better monitoring and compliance of firms. Therefore, both direct and indirect supervision by the Authority and supervisory authorities of all obliged entities across the system should rely on expedient access to relevant data and information about the obliged entities themselves and the supervisory actions and measures taken towards them. To that end, the Authority should establish a central AML/CFT database with information collected from all supervisory authorities, and should make such information selectively available to any supervisory authority within the system and also to AML Compliance Entities. This data should also cover withdrawal of authorisation procedures, fit and proper assessments of shareholders and members of individual obliged entities as this will enable relevant authorities to duly consider possible shortcomings of specific entities and individuals that might have materialised in other Member States. The database should also include statistical information about supervisory and other public authorities involved in AML/CFT supervision. Such information would enable effective oversight by the Authority of the proper functioning and effectiveness of the AML/CFT supervisory system. The information from the database would enable the Authority to react in a timely manner to potential weaknesses and cases of non-compliance by non-selected obliged entities. Pursuant to Article 24 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/193934 , the Authority will without undue delay report to the EPPO any criminal conduct in respect of which it could exercise its competence in accordance with Article 22 and Article 25(2) and (3) of that Regulation. Pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation 883/201335 , the Authority will transmit to OLAF without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. _________________ 34 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1). 35 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1073/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14 a (new)
Recital 14 a (new)
(14a) To enable the Authority to carry out its duties, the supervisory authorities should provide the Authority with all the necessary information regarding selected and non-selected obliged entities, provided that they have legal access to the relevant information. In exceptional and duly justified cases, the Authority should be able to address a request directly to the selected obliged entities or associations of selected obliged entities in order to conduct its tasks related to AML/CFT supervision.
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) With the objective of ensuring a more effective and less fragmented protection of the Union’s financial framework, a limited number of the riskiest obliged entities should be directly supervised by the Authority. As ML/TF risks are not proportional to the size of the supervised entities, other criteria should be applied to identify the most risky entities with specific focus on the AML controls, or lack thereof, the entity has in place to reduce susceptibility to risk. In particular, two categories should be considered: high- risk cross-border credit and financial institutions with activity in a significant number of Member States, selected periodically; and, in exceptional cases, any entity whose material breaches of applicable requirements are not sufficiently or in a timely manner addressed by its national supervisor. Those entities would fall under the category of ‘selected obliged entities’.
Amendment 238 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The first category of credit and financial institutions, or groups of such institutions should be assessed every threfive years, based on a combination of objective criteria related to their cross-border presence and activity, and criteria related to their inherent ML/FT risk profile. Only large complex financial groups present in a number of Member States that could be more efficiently supervised at Union level should be included in theinherent ML/FT risk profile. During subsequent selection process. With respect to credit institutions, minimal cross-border presence for inclusion in the selection process should be based on the number of subsidiaries and branches in different Member States, because risky banking activities of significant volume require a local presence in a form of an establishment. Other financial sector entities may, in contrast, carry out activities that can be sufficiently risky from an ML/TF perspective by means of direct provision of services, for example via a network of agents, but may not have established subsidiaries or branches in a large number of Member States. Therefore, applying the same cross-border criteria, that is to say the one related to freedom of establishment, would result in scoping out large financial sector entities that can have a significant risk profile in a number of Member States, without being established there. Since the volume of activities via direct provision of services is generally smaller than the volume of activities carried out in a branch or a subsidiary, it is appropriate to consider only groups that are established in at least two Member States, but provide services directly or via a network of agents in at least eight more Member Statunds, the Authority should assess those institutions based on residual risk benchmarks in order to better target the riskiest of those obliged entities.
Amendment 245 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) In order to ensure that only the riskiest obliged entities among those with significant cross-border operations are supervised directly at the level of the Union, the assessment of their inherent risk should be harmonised. Currently, there are various national approaches and supervisory authorities use distinct benchmarks for assessment and classification of inherent ML/TF risk of obliged entities. Using these national methodologies for selection of entities for direct supervision at Union level could lead to a different playing field among them. Therefore, the Authority should be empowered to develop regulatory technical standards laying out a harmonised methodology and benchmarks for categorising the inherent ML/TF risk as low, medium, substantial, or high. The methodology should be tailored to particular types of risks and therefore should follow different categories of obliged entities which are financial institutions in accordance with the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing [OP please insert the next number for COM(2021)420]. That methodology should be sufficiently detailed and should establish specific quantitative and qualitative benchmarks considering at least the risk factors related to types of customers served, products and services offered, period of activity and geographical areas, including third country jurisdictions that obliged entities operate in or are related to. Specifically, each assessed obliged entity would have its inherent risk profile classified in each Member State where it operates in a manner consistent with the classification of any other obliged entity in the Union. The quantitative and qualitative benchmarks would allow such classification to be objective and not dependent on the discretion of a given supervisory authority in a Member State, or the discretion of the Authority.
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The final selection criterion should warrant a level playing field among directly supervised obliged entities, and to that end, nNo discretion should be left to the Authority or supervisory authorities in deciding on the list of obliged entities that should be subject to direct supervision. Therefore, where a given assessed obliged entity operates cross- border, has inefficient internal AML controls in place, and falls within the high risk category in accordance with the harmonised methodology in a minimum number of Member States, it should be deemed a selected obliged entity. In case of credit institutions, the cross-border aspect should be addressed by including those credit institutions that are classified as high risk in at least four Member States and where in at least one Member State of those four the entity has been under supervisory or other public investigation for material breaches of AML/CFT requirements. In case of other financial institutions, the cross-border aspect should be addressed by including those financial institutions that are classified as high risk in at least one Member State where they are established and at least five other Member States where they operate by means of direct provision of services.
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) To provide transparency and clarity to the relevant institutions, the Authority should publish a list of the selected obliged entities within one month of commencement of a selection round, after verifying the correspondence of information provided by the financial supervisors to the cross-border activities criteria and the inherent and residual risk methodologyies, where clear policies for risk measurement are established. Therefore it is important that at the beginning of each selection period, the relevant financial supervisors and, if necessary, the obliged entities themselves, provide the Authority with up-to-date statistical information to determine the list of financial institutions eligible for assessment in accordance with the assessment entry criteria relating to their cross-border operations. In this context, the financial supervisors should inform the Authority about the inherent and residual risk category that a financial institution falls into in their jurisdictions in accordance with the methodologyies laid down in the regulatory technical standards. The Authority should then assume the tasks related to direct supervision five months after the publication of the list. That time is needed to appropriately prepare the transfer of supervisory tasks from national to Union level, including the formation of a joint supervisory team, and adopting any relevant working arrangements with the relevant financial supervisors.
Amendment 272 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The Authority should manage, host, and maintain FIU.net, the dedicated IT system allowing FIUs to cooperate and exchange information amongst each other and, where appropriate, with their counterparts from third countries and third parties. The Authority should, in cooperation with Member States, keep the system up-to-date. To this end, the Authority should ensure that at all times the most advanced available state-of-the- art technology, such as Zero-knowledge proof, is used for the development of the FIU.net, subject to a cost-benefit analysis.
Amendment 305 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60 a (new)
Recital 60 a (new)
(60a) The Authority may, be its initiative, create PPPs in case where it considers they would be valuable for the achievement of the objectives set out in the Regulation. In such PPPs, the Authority shall invite the entities it considers appropriate, such as those aforementioned. The Authority may also invite AML Compliance Entities.
Amendment 331 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) ‘non-financial supervisor’ means a supervisor in charge of obliged entities listed in Article 3 of [AMLR], other than credit and financial institutions and members of independent legal professions (i) registered in a self-regulatory body and (ii) subject to professional secrecy rules justified by the guarantee of the rule of law.
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new)
(5a) ‘AML Compliance Entity’ means an entity or digital platform that fully complies with the GDPR and contributes to the effective compliance with the objectives and obligations set out in this regulation and in the legislative acts referred to in Article 1 (2).
Amendment 379 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) carry out supervisory reviews and assessments on individual entity and group-wide level in order to determine whether the arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms put in place by the selected obliged entities are adequate to mitigate their risks related to money laundering and terrorist financing, and on the basis of those supervisory reviews and accounting for their characteristics and the nature of the business, impose specific requirements, supervisory measures and administrative pecuniary sanctions pursuant to Articles 20, 21 and 22;
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
(da) the use and type of information contained in the common regulatory templates for financial obliged entities. The templates should be based on objective and comparable AML data focused on key indicators of activity for AML/CFT purposes, due diligence, internal AML controls, and reporting obligations.
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. Any supervisory authority or any, non- AML authority and AML Compliance Entity may address to the Authority a reasoned request for information collected pursuant to paragraph 2 and 3 that is relevant for its supervisory activities. The Authority shall assess those requests and provide the information requested by the supervisory authorities or, non-AML authorities, or AML Compliance Entities on a need-to-know basis and confidential basis and in a timely manner. TWhen the request is made by an Authority, the Authority shall inform the authority that has initially provided the requested information, of the identity of the requesting supervisory or other authority, the identity of an obliged entity concerned, the reason for the information request as well as whether the information has been provided to the requesting authority.
Amendment 501 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11 a (new)
Amendment 511 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Amendment 555 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. For each category of obliged entities referred to in paragraph 4, the benchmarks in the assessment methodology shall be based on the risk factor categories related to customer, products, services, transactions, internal AML controls, delivery channels and geographical areas. The benchmarks shall be established for at least the following indicators of inherent risk in any Member State they operate in:
Amendment 556 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. For each category of obliged entities referred to in paragraph 4, the benchmarks in the assessment methodology shall be based on the risk factor categories related to customer, products, services, transactions, delivery channels and, geographical areas and period of activity. The benchmarks shall be established for at least the following indicators of inherent risk in any Member State they operate in:
Amendment 582 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)
(ca) with respect to period of activity: in the first three years of activity.
Amendment 608 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) each financial institution assessed pursuant to Article 12 that has a high inherent risk stemming from inefficient internal AML risk management procedures, in at least one Member States where it is established or operates via a subsidiary or a branch, and at least five other Member States where it operates via direct provision of services or via a network of representative agents.
Amendment 666 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the arrangements, strategies, processes and mechanisms implemented by the selected obliged entity do not ensure, based on an objective determination by the Authority, a sound management and coverage of its risks.
Amendment 820 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Before issuing such a recommendation, the Authority shall engage with the supervisory authority concerned, where it considers such engagement appropriate in order to resolve a breach of Union law, in an attempt to reach agreement on the actions necessary for compliance with Union law.
Amendment 828 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
Article 32 – paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Where the formal opinion referred to in paragraph 4 is addressed to a supervisory authority which is a public authority overseeing a SRB, and where it does not comply with the formal opinion within the period specified therein, to remedy such non-compliance in a timely manner, the Authority may adopt an individual decis non- binding recommendation addressed to an SRB requiring it to take all necessary action to comply with its obligations under Union law.
Amendment 863 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 1
Article 37 – paragraph 1
1. The Authority shall ensure adequate and uninterrupted hosting, management, maintenance, and development of the FIU.net. The Authority shall, in cooperation with the Member States, ensure that the most advanced available technology, including on the blockchain where appropriate, is used for the FIU.net, subject to a cost-benefit analysis whilst preserving technological neutrality.
Amendment 1021 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 77 – paragraph 2
Article 77 – paragraph 2
2. When drafting guidelines and recommendations in accordance with Article 43, having a significant impact on the protection of personal data, the Authority shall closely cooperate with the European Data Protection Board established by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 to avoid duplication, inconsistencies and legal uncertainty in the sphere of data protection whilst utilising the most advanced technologies, including those on the blockchain, where appropriate.
Amendment 1035 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 79 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In case it is proven valuable, the Authority may, by its initiative, create such a PPP inviting the entities it considers appropriate, such as obliged entities and AML compliance entities.
Amendment 1068 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 92 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The Commission shall be responsible for the establishment and initial operation of the Authority until the date on which the Authority becomes operational, which shall be 1 January 20245 in accordance with Article 93. For that purpose:
Amendment 1069 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 93 – paragraph 2
Article 93 – paragraph 2
It shall apply from 1 January 20245.
Amendment 1070 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 93 – paragraph 3
Article 93 – paragraph 3
However, Articles 1, 4, 38, 42, 43, 44, 46, 56, 58, 86 and 87 shall apply from 1 January 20234.