[ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) It would not be proportionate to impose on payment institutions and electronic money institutions an obligation to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit transfers in euro, because those institutions cannot be admitted as participants in a payment system designated in accordance with Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council36 . Those institutions may therefore experience difficulties in accessing the infrastructure necessary to execute instant credit transfers. It is therefore appropriate to exclude payment institutions and electronic money institutions from the obligation to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit transfers in euro. However, this exclusion should be reviewed once payment institutions and electronic money institutions can access the necessary infrastructure. __________________ 36 Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 45).

2023/04/21
Committee: ECON

Markus FERBER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Security of instant credit transfers in euro is fundamental for increasing PSUs’ confidence in such services and ensuring their use. Payers intending to send a credit transfer to a given payee may, as a result of fraud or error, provide a payment account identifier which does not correspond to an account held by that payee. Under Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council37 , the only determinant of the correct execution of the transaction with respect to the payee is the unique identifier, and PSPs are not required to verify the name of the payee. In the case of instant credit transfers, there is not enough time for the payer to realise the occurrence of a fraud or error and to try to recover the funds before they are credited to the payee’s account. PSPs should therefore verify whether there is any discrepancy between the unique identifier of the payee and the name of the payee provided by the payer, and notify the payer placing a payment order for an instant credit transfer in euro about any such discrepancies detected. To avoid undue frictions or delays in the processing of the transaction instantly, the payer’s PSP should provide such notification within no more than a few seconds from the moment the payer provided the payee information. To allow the payer to decide whether to proceed with the intended transaction, the payer’s PSP should provide such notification before the payer authorises the transaction.Therefore, payment services providers should have in place robust and up-to-date fraud detection and prevention measures. However, payment services providers should be given a certain degree of flexibility in defining the fraud detection and prevention measures that are most suited to deal with new challenges; __________________ 37 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).

2023/04/21
Committee: ECON

Markus FERBER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) Some attributes of the name of the payee to whose account the payer wishes to make an instant credit transfer may increase the likelihood of a discrepancy being detected by the PSP, including the presence of diacritics or different possible transliterations of names in different alphabets, differences between habitually used names and names indicated on formal identification documents in case of natural persons, or differences between commercial and legal names in case of legal persons. To avoid undue frictions in the processing of instant credit transfers in euro and facilitate the payer’s decision on whether to proceed with the intended transaction, PSPs should indicate the degree of such discrepancy, including by indicating in the notification that there is ‘no match’ or ‘close match’.deleted

2023/04/21
Committee: ECON

Markus FERBER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) Authorising a payment transaction where the PSP has detected a discrepancy and has notified that discrepancy to the PSU can result in the funds being transferred to an unintended payee. In such cases, PSPs should not be held liable for the execution of the transaction to an unintended payee, as laid down in Article 88 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366. PSPs should inform PSUs about the implications for PSP liability and PSU refunds rights of their choice to ignore the notified discrepancy. PSUs should be able to opt out from using that service at any time during their contractual relationship with the PSP. After opting out, PSUs should be able to opt in to again avail of the service.deleted

2023/04/21
Committee: ECON

Markus FERBER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) It is of critical importance that PSPs effectively comply with their obligations stemming from Union sanctions against persons, bodies or entities that are subject to an asset freeze or a prohibition to make funds or economic resources available to it, or for its benefit, either directly or indirectly, pursuant to restrictive measures adopted in accordance with Article 215 TFEU (listed persons or entities). Union law, however, does not lay down rules on the procedure or tools to be used by PSPs to ensure their compliance with those obligations. PSPs thus apply various methods, based on their individual choice or on the guidance provided by the national authorities concerned. The practice of complying with obligations stemming from Union sanctions by screening the payer and the payee involved in each credit transfer transaction, either national or cross-border, leads to a very high number of credit transfers being flagged as potentially involving listed persons or entities. However, the large majority of such flagged transactions turn out, after verification, not to involve any such persons or entities. Due to the nature of instant credit transfers, it is impossible for PSPs to verify, within short time limits, such flagged transactions instantly and, as a result, they are rejected. That situation creates operational challenges for PSPs to offer instant credit transfers to their PSUs across the Union in a reliable and predictable way. To provide for greater legal certainty, increase the efficiency of PSPs’ efforts to comply with their obligations stemming from Union sanctions in the context of instant credit transfers in euro, and to prevent unnecessary hindering of such transactions, PSPs should thus verify, at ~~least daily~~appropriate intervals, during customer onboarding and in case of major changes to the customer data, whether their PSUs are listed persons or entities, and should no longer apply transaction-based screening.

2023/04/21
Committee: ECON

Markus FERBER