EN ECB -PUB LIC 
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK  
of 30  December 2019  
on limitations to cash payments  
(CON/20 19/46) 
 
Introduction and legal basis  
On 3 December 2019  the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Minister for Finance  
of the Netherlands for an opinion on a draft l aw on an anti -money laundering action plan containing 
limitations to cash payments (hereinafter the ‘draft law’ ). 
The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of t he European Union  and the second indent  of Article  2(1) of Council Decision 98/415/EC1, 
as the draft law relates to means of payment . In accordance with the first sentence of Article  17.5 of the 
Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governin g Council has adopted this opinion.  
 
1. Purpose of the draft law 
1.1 The draft law intends to reinforce the measures taken to prevent  money laundering by limiting the 
use of large amounts of cash.  
1.2 The draft law prohibits natural or legal persons trading in goods,  in the course of their business or 
professional activities, from receiving or making a payment in cash  in an amount equal to or greater 
than EUR  3 000, regardless of whether the  transaction is carried out in a single operation or in 
several operations whi ch appear to be linked.  The ECB understands that the draft law is addressed 
to professional parties and will only affect consumers if they buy or sell goods from such a 
professional party. Transactions between consumers are not covered by the draft law.  
 
2. Observations   
2.1 Commis sion Recommendation 2010/191/EU2 states that the acceptance of payments in cash 
should be the rule, but acknowledges that cash may be refused for reasons related to the ‘good 
faith principle’, without this constituting a breach of the le gal tender status of cash. Neither Union 
law nor Recommendation 2010/191/EU explicitly addresses whether, or to what extent, it may be 
permissible to introduce a more general limitation to the obligation to accept euro cash payments. 
Therefore, Union law m ust be interpreted in order to ascertain the conditions that a limitation on 
payments in euro bank notes and coins should fulfil, including the conditions that should be fulfilled 
                                                 
1  Council Decision 98/415/EC of 29  June 1998 on the consultation of the European Central Bank by national 
authorities regarding draft legislative provisions ( OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42). 
2  Commission Recommendatio n 2010/191/EU of 22 March 2010 on the scope and effects of legal tender of euro 
banknotes and coins (OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p . 70).   
ECB -PUBLIC  
2 to comply with the legal tender status of euro banknotes and coins when gener al limitations to the 
obligation to accept cash payments are introduced3. 
2.2 Recital 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/984 states that ‘limitations on payments in notes and 
coins, established by Member States for public reasons, are not incompatible with t he status of 
legal tender of euro banknotes and coins, provided that other lawful means for the settlement of 
monetary debts are available5. Additionally, these limitations should also be effective and 
proportionate to the objectives pursued and not go bey ond what is necessary to achieve such 
objectives in order to comply with the legal tender status of euro banknotes . Any limitation should 
not otherwise affect in principle the legal tender status of euro banknotes . Any negative impact of 
the proposed limit ations should therefore be carefully weighed against the anticipated public 
benefits. When considering whether a limitation is proportionate, the adverse impact of the 
limitation in question should always be considered, as well as whether any alternative m easures 
could be adopted that would fulfil the relevant objective and have less adverse impact6. 
2.3 The ECB acknowledges that the draft law’s objective of reinforcing measures taken to prevent 
money laundering may, in general, constitute a ‘public reason’ jus tifying the establishment of 
limitations on cash payments7.  
2.4 Furthermore, the ability to pay in cash remains particularly important for certain groups in society 
that, for various legitimate reasons, prefer to use cash rather than other payment methods. Ca sh is 
generally also appreciated as a payment instrument because it is widely accepted, fast , and 
facilitates control over the payer’s spending. Moreover, it is the only means of payment that allows 
citizens to instantly settle a transaction in central ban k money and at face value, without the legal 
possibility to impose a fee for the use of this means of payment8. 
2.5 Other lawful means for the settlement of monetary debts with similar benefits as cash  are generally 
available in the Netherlands for the purchas e of goods, also abov e the foreseen threshold of 
EUR  3 000. Taking this into consideration , in addition to the above general observations, the 
limitations on cash payments set out in the draft provisions could  be deemed proportionate to the 
objectives purs ued. They could also be deemed to  not go beyond what is necessary to  achieve 
such objectives.  However, the ECB cannot elaborate on the effectiveness of the draft law since no 
substantiation thereof has been provided together with the draft law.  
2.6 The ECB tak es particular note of the approach adopted in the draft law, whereby the prohibition on 
the receipt or payment of cash in an amount equal to or greater than EUR 3 000 is limited to 
transactions whereby at least one of the parties  is trading in goods in the  course of their business 
or professional activities. The ECB welcomes the approach taken by the Netherlands authorities 
not to restrict  cash payments between private users or consumers.  
                                                 
3  See paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/20 17/18, paragraph 3.1 of Opinion  CON/20 17/20, paragraph 2.3 of 
Opinion  CON/2017/27, para graph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2017/40  and paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2019/4 . All ECB 
opinions are available on the ECB ’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu .    
4  Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introd uction of the euro (OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 1). 
5  See, for example, Opinions CON/2013/18, CON/2014/4 and CON/2014/37.  
6  See, for example,  paragraph 3.3 of Opinion CON/2017/20 , parag raph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/27, paragraph 2.6 
of Opinion CON/2017/40 and paragraph 2.5 of Opinion CON/2019/4 . 
7  See, for example , paragraph 2.5 of Opinion CON/2017/40 . 
8  See paragraph  2.6 of Opinion CON/2017/18, paragraph 3.4 of Opinion CON/20 17/20, paragraph 2.8 of 
Opinion  CON/2017/27 , paragraph 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/40  and paragraph 2.6 of Opinion CON/2019/4 . 
ECB -PUBLIC  
3 2.7 The ECB understands that electronic payment instruments are increasin gly used as the method of 
payment in the Netherlands , while the use of cash is declining. Nevertheless, as indicated above, 
cash is a well -established means of payment providing for immediate settlement of debts and direct 
control over the payer’s spending , and  also facilitate s the inclusion of the entire population in the 
economy by allowing it to settle any kind of financial transaction in this way9. The ECB notes that 
cash could play an important role in the event of a disturbance in the payment systems,  even 
though cash machines and other service points may also be affected as these are dependent on 
interaction with the account holding institutions.  The ECB considers it im portant that all Member 
States  take appropriate measures to ensure that credit inst itutions and branches operating within 
their territories provide adequate access to cash services, in order to facilitate the continued use of 
cash10. 
 
This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website.  
 
 
Done at Frankfurt am Main, 30 December 2019 . 
 
[signed]  
 
The President of the ECB  
Christine  LAGARDE  
                                                 
9  See, Opinion CON/2017/8, O pinion CON /2017/40,  Opinion  CON/2019/4 , and  paragraph 2.1 of  
Opinion  CON/2019/41 . 
10  See paragraph s 2.1 and 2.3 of Opinion CON/2019/41 .