9 Amendments of Laura HUHTASAARI related to 2021/0240(COD)
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 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.