# C_2023015EN.01000801.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Rodl & Partner’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-562/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Point 3(b) of Annex III - Risk-based approach - Risk assessment carried out by obliged entities - Identification of risks by Member States and obliged entities - Customer due diligence measures - Enhanced due diligence measures - High-corruption-risk third countries - Article 13(1)(c) and (d) - Evidence and documentation requirements for obliged entities - Article 14(5) - Ongoing monitoring of customers by obliged entities - Publication of decisions imposing a sanction)

(2023/C 15/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Rodl & Partner’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 18(1) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, read in conjunction with Article 5 of and point 3(b) of Annex III to that directive,
  must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require an obliged entity automatically to assign a high-risk level to a customer and therefore to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in respect of that customer solely because the customer is a non-governmental organisation, or one of the employees of that customer is a national of a high-corruption-risk third country, or a business partner of that customer, but not the customer itself, is linked to such a third country. A Member State may, however, identify such circumstances in national law as factors indicative of a potentially higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, which obliged entities must take into account in their risk assessment of their customers, provided that those factors are in conformity with European Union law and, in particular, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 18(1) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, read in conjunction with Article 5 of and point 3(b) of Annex III to that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require an obliged entity automatically to assign a high-risk level to a customer and therefore to adopt enhanced due diligence measures in respect of that customer solely because the customer is a non-governmental organisation, or one of the employees of that customer is a national of a high-corruption-risk third country, or a business partner of that customer, but not the customer itself, is linked to such a third country. A Member State may, however, identify such circumstances in national law as factors indicative of a potentially higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, which obliged entities must take into account in their risk assessment of their customers, provided that those factors are in conformity with European Union law and, in particular, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

| 2. | Article 13(1)(c) and (d) of Directive 2015/849, read in conjunction with Article 8(2), Article 13(4) and point (a) and of the first subparagraph of Article 40(1) of that directive,
  must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the obliged entity, when taking customer due diligence measures, to obtain from the customer concerned a copy of the contract concluded between that customer and a third party, provided that the obliged entity can provide the competent national authority with other appropriate documents showing that it has analysed the transaction and the business relationship between that customer and the third party and has taken due account of it in order to adopt the necessary due diligence measures with regard to the identified risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 13(1)(c) and (d) of Directive 2015/849, read in conjunction with Article 8(2), Article 13(4) and point (a) and of the first subparagraph of Article 40(1) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the obliged entity, when taking customer due diligence measures, to obtain from the customer concerned a copy of the contract concluded between that customer and a third party, provided that the obliged entity can provide the competent national authority with other appropriate documents showing that it has analysed the transaction and the business relationship between that customer and the third party and has taken due account of it in order to adopt the necessary due diligence measures with regard to the identified risks of money laundering and terrorist financing.

| 3. | Article 14(5) of Directive 2015/849, read in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof,
  must be interpreted as meaning that obliged entities have an obligation to adopt, on the basis of an up-to-date risk assessment, due diligence measures, where appropriate of an enhanced nature, in respect of an existing customer, where that appears appropriate, in particular where there has been a change in the relevant factors relating to the situation of that customer, regardless of the fact that the maximum period laid down by national law for carrying out a new risk assessment in respect of that customer has not yet expired. That obligation does not only apply to customers with a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 14(5) of Directive 2015/849, read in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that obliged entities have an obligation to adopt, on the basis of an up-to-date risk assessment, due diligence measures, where appropriate of an enhanced nature, in respect of an existing customer, where that appears appropriate, in particular where there has been a change in the relevant factors relating to the situation of that customer, regardless of the fact that the maximum period laid down by national law for carrying out a new risk assessment in respect of that customer has not yet expired. That obligation does not only apply to customers with a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.

| 4. | Article 60(1) and (2) of Directive 2015/849
  must be interpreted as meaning that when publishing a decision imposing a sanction adopted on account of an infringement of the national provisions transposing that directive, the competent national authority is required to ensure that the information published is exactly the same as that contained in that decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 60(1) and (2) of Directive 2015/849

must be interpreted as meaning that when publishing a decision imposing a sanction adopted on account of an infringement of the national provisions transposing that directive, the competent national authority is required to ensure that the information published is exactly the same as that contained in that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---