20 Amendments of Markus FERBER related to 2021/0250(COD)
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) The accuracy of data included in the beneficial ownership registers is fundamental for all of the relevant authorities and other persons allowed access to that data, and to make valid, lawful decisions based on that data. Member States should therefore ensure that the data entered into the beneficial ownership registers is reliable and up-to- date. Therefore, where sufficient reasons arise, after careful analysis by the registrars, to doubt the accuracy of the beneficial ownership information held by the registers, legal entities and legal arrangements should be required to provide additional information on a risk-sensitive basis. In addition, it is important that Member States entrust the entity in charge of managing the registers with sufficient powers to verify beneficial ownership and the veracity of information provided to it, and to report any suspicion to their FIU. Such powers should extend to the conduct of inspections at the premises of the legal entities. Should the data in the register be incomplete or inaccurate, this should not compromise the validity of transactions concluded based on this data.
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) In order to respect privacy and protect personal data, the minimum data necessary for the carrying out of AML/CFT investigations should be held in centralised automated mechanisms for bank and payment accounts, such as registers or data retrieval systems. It should be possible for Member States to determine which data it is useful and proportionate to gather, taking into account the systems and legal traditions in place to enable the meaningful identification of the beneficial owners. When transposing the provisions relating to those mechanisms, Member States should set out retention periods equivalent to the period for retention of the documentation and information obtained within the application of customer due diligence measures. It should be possible for Member States to extend the retention period on a general basis by law, without requiring case-by-case decisionbasis. The additional retention period should not exceed an additional fivthree years. That period should be without prejudice to national law setting out other data retention requirements allowing case-by-case decisions to facilitate criminal or administrative proceedings. Access to those mechanisms should be on a need-to- know basis.
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) Real estate is an attractive commodity for criminals to launder the proceeds of their illicit activities, as it allows obscuring the true source of the funds and the identity of the beneficial owner. Proper and timely identification of natural or legal person owning real estate by FIUs and other competent authorities is important both for detecting money laundering schemes as well as for freezing and confiscation of assets. It is therefore important that Member States provide FIUs and competent authorities with access to information held in centralised or decentralised registers which allows the identification in a timely manner of natural or legal person owning real estate and information relevant for the identification of the risk and suspicion of the transaction.
Amendment 300 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44 a (new)
Recital 44 a (new)
(44a) While certain goods registered under national law could be attractive commodities for criminals to launder the proceeds of their illicit activities, money- laundering prevention also needs to adhere to the principle of proportionality. Setting up a central registry to collect ownership information in relation to high-value goods, would constitute a disproportionate intrusion into the privacy of large parts of the population. Therefore, this is an avenue that should not be pursued.
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 69
Recital 69
Amendment 328 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 73
Recital 73
(73) Publication of an administrative sanction or measure for breach of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] can have a strong dissuasive effect against repetition of such breach. It also informs other entities of the money laundering and financing of terrorism risks associated with the sanctioned obliged entity before entering into a business relationship and assists supervisors in other Member States in relation to the risks associated with an obliged entity when it operates in their Member State on a cross- border basis. For those reasons, the requirement to publish decisions on sanctions against which there is no appeal possible should be confirmed. However, any such publication should be proportionate and, in the taking of a decision whether to publish an administrative sanction or measure, supervisors should take into account the gravity of the breach and the dissuasive effect that the publication is likely to achieve.
Amendment 380 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States shall ensure that supervisors have the power to request the suspension of any person from the management role of an obliged entity as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 or, in the case where no management role exists in obliged entities, the suspension of their licence to exercise the activity, where that person has repeatedly committed or attempted money-laundering offences in connection with that obliged entity.
Amendment 407 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. Within 2 years of the adoption of the report referred to in paragraph 1, and every fourthree years thereafter, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the actions taken based on the findings of that report.
Amendment 419 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) improve its AML/CFT regime, in particular by identifying anyhigh and low-risk areas where obliged entities are to apply enhanced measuresmeasures in line with the risk- profile and, where appropriate, specifying the measures to be taken;
Amendment 502 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) competent authorities, if appropriate and to the extent that this requirement does not interfere unnecessarily with their functions, shall report to the entity in charge of the central registers any discrepancies they find between beneficial ownership information available in the central registers and the beneficial ownership information available to them.
Amendment 511 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6
Article 10 – paragraph 6
6. Member States shall require that the reporting of discrepancies referred to in paragraph 5 takes place within 1428 calendar days after detecting the discrepancy. In cases of lower risk to which measures under Section 3 of Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation] apply, Member States may allow obliged entities to request the customer to rectify discrepancies of a technical nature that do not hinder the identification of the beneficial owner(s) directly with the entity in charge of the central registers.
Amendment 549 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have timelyimmediate, unrestricted and free access to the information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10, without alerting the entity or arrangement concerned.
Amendment 560 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that, when taking customer due diligence measures in accordance with Chapter III of Regulation [please insert reference – proposal for Anti-Money Laundering Regulation], obliged entities have timelyimmediate and free access to the information held in the interconnected central registers referred to in Article 10.
Amendment 755 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) suspicious transaction reports submitted by obliged entities and information on the FIU's follow-up on the suspicious transaction reports it has received;
Amendment 760 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
FIUs shall disseminate the report to obliged entities. Such report shall be made public within four monthsat the date of its dissemination, except for the elements of the report which contain classified information. The information contained therein shall not permit the identification of any natural or legal person.
Amendment 768 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The FIU shall provide such feedback at least ontwice per year, whether provided to the individual obliged entity or to groups of obliged entities, taking into consideration the overall number of suspicious transactions reported by the obliged entities.
Amendment 872 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter IV – Section 3
Chapter IV – Section 3
Amendment 886 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Article 39 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the right of Member States to provide for and impose criminal sanctions, Member States shall lay down rules on administrative sanctions and measures and ensure that supervisors may impose such sanctions and measures with respect to breaches of the legislation transposing this Directive, and shall ensure that they are applied. Any resulting sanction or measure imposed pursuant to this Section shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 900 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 40 – paragraph 2
Article 40 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that in the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the maximum pecuniary sanctions that can be applied amount at least toto the higher of the following two amounts: twice the amount of the benefit derived from the breach where that benefit can be determined, or at least EUR 1 000 000.
Amendment 908 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 40 – paragraph 4
Article 40 – paragraph 4