EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO 
KOM(95) 54 lopull 
Bryssel,03/03/95 
KOMISSION KERTOMUS 
Ensimmäinen komission kertomus Euroopan parlamentille ja 
neuvostolle rahanpesusta annetun direktiivin (91/308/ETY) täytän­
töönpanosta 
(TIIVISTELMÄ) 

1. Tämä on ensimmäinen komission kertomus rahanpesusta annetun direktiivin (91/-
308/ETY) täytäntöönpanosta, joka kyseisen direktiivin 17 artiklan mukaan on annetta­
va Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle. 
Ensimmäinen kertomus koskee kahtatoista jäsenvaltiota, koska Euroopan unionin 
uusia jäsenvaltioita koskevat tiedot sisältyvät rinnakkaiseen kertomukseen, jonka 
EFTAn pysyvä komitea on laatinut Euroopan talousalueeseen (ETA:han) kuuluvien 
EFTA-maiden osalta. Kertomus perustuu laaja-alaiseen lähestymistapaan, ja siinä 
selostetaan, millä tavoin direktiivin keskeiset säännökset on pantu täytäntöön jäsen­
valtioissa. Siinä selostetaan niitä pääasiallisia vaikeuksia, joita jäsenvaltiot ovat 
kohdanneet pannessaan täytäntöön tätä yhteisön säädöstä. Lisäksi kertomuksessa on 
tarkoitus kiinnittää huomiota sekä Euroopan rahanpesun vastaisen järjestelmän rat­
kaisemattomiin kysymyksiin että sen heikkouksiin. 
Kertomuksen liitteinä olevissa seitsemässä taulukossa esitetään direktiivin kunkin 
säännöksen erityiset täytäntöönpanosäännökset kansallisissa lainsäädännöissä, Wienin 
ja Strasbourgin yleissopimusten täytäntöönpanon tilanne, rahanpesun vastaisen 
rikosoikeudellisen ja rahoitusta koskevan lainsäädännön soveltamisala, direktiivin so­
veltamisalaan kuuluvat muut kuin rahoitusalan ammatit sekä jäsenvaltioiden sovel­
tamat rangaistusseuraamukset. 
2. Tämän kertomuksen loppuun saattamisen ajankohtana kaikki jäsenvaltiot Kreikkaa 
lukuun ottamatta ovat ilmoittaneet komissiolle panneensa direktiivin täytäntöön. 
Irlanti on pannut direktiivin täytäntöön vasta osittain, vaikka direktiivin keskeiset 
säännökset onkin jo saatettu osaksi uutta Irlannin lakia. Espanja on pannut direktiivin 
säännökset täysimittaisesti täytäntöön rahanpesua koskevalla lailla, joka on voimassa 
ja jota sovelletaan, mutta ei ole vielä antanut sen kehittämiseksi tarkoitettua asetusta. 
Kreikassa valmistellaan parhaillaan lakiesitystä, joka annetaan sen parlamentille 
todennäköisesti vuoden 1995 ensimmäiseen neljännekseen mennessä. 
3. Direktiivin täytäntöönpanolla on ollut ilmeisen selvä vaikutus rahanpesun vastaisten 
järjestelmien perustamiseen jäsenvaltioissa. Komission antaessa direktiiviehdotuk­
sensa neuvostolle (maaliskuussa 1990) rahanpesu oli erityinen rikos ainoastaan 
yhdessä jäsenvaltiossa, eikä yhteisön rahoitusjärjestelmille ollut vahvistettu pakollisia 
sääntöjä tämän ilmiön torjumiseksi ja yhteistyön varmistamiseksi niiden 
viranomaisten kanssa, joita asia koskee. 
Tätä kertomusta laadittaessa rahanpesu on rikos kaikissa kahdessatoista 
jäsenvaltiossa. Kaikki direktiivin täytäntöön panneet yksitoista jäsenvaltiota ovat 
vahvistaneet säännöt, joiden tarkoituksena on suojata niiden rahoitusjärjestelmiä 
rahanpesulta, ja niiden luotto-ja rahoituslaitokset ovat velvollisia toimimaan tällä osin 
aktiivisesti yhteistyössä asianmukaisten viranomaisten kanssa. 
4. Mitä tulee rahanpesun rikosoikeudelliseen asemaan, huumausainekaupasta koituvan 
hyödyn pesu on säädetty rikokseksi kaikissa kahdessatoista jäsenvaltiossa, ja kahdek­
sassa niistä on mistä tahansa rikollisesta toiminnasta tai törkeästä rikoksesta koituvan 
hyödyn pesu säädetty rikokseksi. Kolme niistä neljästä jäsenvaltiosta, joiden rahan­
pesun määritelmät edelleen rajoittuvat huumausainekaupasta koituvaan hyötyyn, 
suunnittelee rahanpesurikoksen käsitteen laajentamista lähiaikoina. 
5. Direktiivin täytäntöönpanemiseksi annetussa erityislainsäädännössä kymmenen 
jäsenvaltiota on ylittänyt direktiivin johdantokappaleissa suositellun pakollisen sovel­
tamisalan ja ulottanut direktiivin soveltamisen muusta rikollisesta toiminnasta kuin 
huumausainekaupasta koituvan hyödyn pesuun. Kuuden valtion lainsäädäntö koskee 
mistä tahansa rikollisesta toiminnasta saatavan hyödyn pesua ja kolme valtiota, 
säätämättä yleistä soveltamisalaa, on sisällyttänyt rahanpesulainsäädäntöönsä hyvin 
laajalti erilaista rikollisesta toiminnasta saatavaa hyötyä. 
6. Jäsenvaltioiden lainsäädännöt koskevat direktiivissä toisen pankkidirektiivin liit­
teeseen viittaamalla tarkoitettua rahoitusjärjestelmää kokonaisuudessaan (esimerkiksi 
luottolaitoksia, henkivakuutusyhtiöitä, sijoitusyrityksiä, valuutanvaihtotoimistoja, luo­
tto- ja pankkikorttien antajia sekä leasing- ja factoringyrityksiä). Joidenkin jäsenvalti­
oiden on kuitenkin edelleen kehitettävä lainsäädäntöään sen varmistamiseksi, että 
nämä laitokset noudattavat velvoitteitaan rahanpesun alalla. Tämä edellyttää erityistä 
työtä niiden laitosten osalta, joiden toiminnan vakautta ei valvota: näitä ovat esimer­
kiksi valuutanvaihtotoimistot useimmissa maissa. 
7. Rahoitusjärjestelmän ulkopuolisten ammattien osalta kuusi jäsenvaltiota soveltaa 12 
artiklan mahdollistamasta suuresta harkinnanvapaudesta huolimatta lainsäädäntöään 
kokonaan tai osittain joihinkin muiden kuin rahoitusalan ammattien ryhmiin. 
Pääasialliset soveltamisalueet ovat peliteollisuus (kasinot), arvo-omaisuuden välittäjät 
(kiinteistöt, arvometallit, korut ja taide/antiikki) sekä rahoitustoimintoja harjoittavat 
lakiammatit (lakimiehet, notaarit ja muut lakiammatit). Soveltamisalaan sisällytetyt 
yksittäiset ammatit ja niitä koskevat velvoitteet vaihtelevat huomattavasti valtiosta 
toiseen. 
8. Kaikkien jäsenvaltioiden lainsäädännöissä säädetään luotto- ja rahoituslaitosten 
velvollisuudesta toimia aktiivisesti yhteistyössä rahanpesun torjunnasta vastaavien vi­
ranomaisten kanssa ja siten myös ammattisalaisuuden täydellisestä poistamisesta tältä 
alalta. Koska direktiivin tarkoituksena ei kuitenkaan ole yhdenmukaistaa lain täy­
täntöönpanomenettelyjä, kukin jäsenvaltio sääntelee harkintansa mukaan sellaisia 
seikkoja kuin kertomuksia epäilyttävistä liiketoimista vastaanottavien viranomaisten 
luonne ja organisaatio, olosuhteet, joissa viranomaiset voivat keskeyttää epäilyttävän 
toiminnan sekä rahanpesua torjuvien viranomaisten välinen tietojenvaihto. 
9. Vaikka jäsenvaltiot ovat tehneet merkittävää työtä rahanpesun vastaisen järjestelmän 
toteuttamiseksi direktiivin periaatteiden mukaisesti, tarvitaan edelleen kansallisen 
tason toimia erityisesti seuraavilla alueilla: 
jäsenvaltioiden valvontajärjestelmien parantaminen niiden rahanpesua koskevan 
lainsäädännön tehokkaan soveltamisen varmistamiseksi kaikissa direktiivin 
soveltamisalaan kuuluvissa laitoksissa; 
luotto- ja rahoituslaitosten ohjaus, tukeminen ja tutkiminen näiden ottaessa 
käyttöön asianmukaisia sisäisen valvonnan ja tiedotuksen menettelyjä sekä 
vahvistaessa koulutusohjelmia. Tähän sisältyy rahoitustoiminnan eri lajeihin 
mukautettujen suuntaviivojen vahvistaminen yhteistyössä asianomaisten 
toimivaltaisten viranomaisten ja ammatillisten yhteenliittymien kanssa; 
ohjaus rahanpesun toimintamallien ja epäilyttävien toimintojen määrittelyssä; 
rahanpesua koskevista asioista vastaavien eri viranomaisten ja elinten välisen yh­
teistyön vahvistaminen. 
10. Yhteisön tasolla toiminta olisi keskitettävä seuraaviin suuntiin: 
Komissio jatkaa tarvittavien toimenpiteiden toteuttamista sen varmistamiseksi, 
että kaikki jäsenvaltiot panevat direktiivin täytäntöön täysimittaisesti ja asian­
mukaisesti. Erityistä huomiota kiinnitetään direktiivin eri säännöksiä koskevien 
seuraamusten avoimuuteen ja tehokkuuteen. 
Komission ja jäsenvaltioiden olisi jatkettava työtään rahanpesua käsittelevässä 
yhteyskomiteassa, jotta varmistettaisiin direktiivin ja erityisesti sen rahoitusjärjes­
telmän ulkopuolisia ammatteja koskevan 12 artiklan soveltamisen parempi yh­
teensovittaminen. 
Yhteyskomiteassa komission ja jäsenvaltioiden olisi myös jatkettava työtään 
tunnistusvaatimusten soveltamista kaukana tapahtuvassa toiminnassa koskevan 
ongelman ratkaisemiseksi, jotta löydettäisiin vaihtoehtoisia menettelyjä jousta­
vuuden ja turvallisuuden asianmukaisen tasapainon saavuttamiseksi. 
11. Direktiivin soveltamisalan ulkopuolella Euroopan rahanpesun vastaisen 
järjestelmän kehittäminen edellyttää jäsenvaltioiden välisen yhteensovittamisen ja 
yhteistyön lisäämistä hallinnon ja rikosoikeuden aloilla. Jos sellaisia asioita kuin 
rahanpesurikoksen käsitteen määrittelyä, tietojenvaihtoa muiden jäsenvaltioiden 
viranomaisten kanssa, oikeudellista apua sekä rikollisesta toiminnasta saadun hyödyn 
takavarikointiin ja valtiolle menetetyksi julistamiseen liittyviä toimenpiteitä sään­
neltäisiin yksinomaan kansallisella tasolla ottamatta huomioon tarvittavaa Euroopan 
unionin jäsenvaltioiden välistä yhteensovittamista ja yhteistyötä, tämä vaikuttaisi 
kielteisesti rahanpesun torjuntaan ilmiön ylikansallisen ulottuvuuden vuoksi. 
Tämän vuoksi jäsenvaltioiden olisi kaikin tavoin pyrittävä ratifioimaan ja panemaan 
täytäntöön Wienin ja Strasbourgin yleissopimukset, joissa yhdenmukaistetaan muun 
muassa huomattavia rikosoikeudellisia ja oikeudellisen avun menettelyjä koskevia 
näkökohtia rahanpesun alalla. Lisäksi Euroopan unionin olisi käytettävä 
täysimittaisesti kaikkia Maastrichtin sopimuksen VI osastoon perustuvia oikeudellisen 
yhteistyön ja poliisiyhteistyön mahdollisuuksia, mukaan lukien tarvittaessa Europolin 
käyttö 10-11 päivänä joulukuuta 1993 vahvistetun Eurooppa-neuvoston oikeus-ja 
sisäasiain toimintasuunnitelman mukaan. Tässä yhteydessä jäsenvaltioiden olisi otet­
tava asianmukaisesti huomioon Kööpenhaminassa 1 - 2 päivänä kesäkuuta 1993 an­
netut oikeus- ja sisäasiain neuvoston rahanpesua koskevat suositukset. 
J\ VSL, 
SUMMARY 
This is the first Commission's report on the implementation of the Money Laundering 
Directive (91/308/EEC), which, as provided for in Article 17 of this Community text, 
will be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council. 
The first report covers twelve Member States, since the new Members of the European 
Union are included in a parallel report that the EFTA Standing Committee has prepared 
for the EFTA countries which are part of the European Economic Area (EEA). The 
report, based on a horizontal approach, describes the way in which the cardinal 
provisions of the Directive have been implemented by the Member States. It describes 
the main difficulties which Member States have found in the implementation of this 
Community text. It also intends to point out both the outstanding aspects and the weak 
points of the European anti-money laundering system. 
Seven tables annexed to the report present the specific provisions implementing each 
stipulation of the Directive in the national legislations, the state of play of the 
implementation of the Vienna and Strasbourg Conventions, the scope of the penal and 
financial legislation against money laundering, the coverage of non financial professions, 
as well as the penalties established by the Member States. 
The conclusions of the document propose lines of action to be taken both at national and 
European Union level in order to achieve full application of the Directive and to 
reinforce the European anti-money laundering system. 
li-
I. INTRODUCTION. 
1. Article 17 of the Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on the prevention 
of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering provided that 
one year after 1 January 1993 the Commission shall draw up a report on the 
implementation of the Directive and submit it to the European Parliament and to the 
Council. 
However, by the date by which the above-mentioned report was due, 1 January 
1994, only five Member States had notified the Commission of the full 
implementation of the Directive. A report in those circumstances would have been 
of very little meaning. The Commission has therefore considered it more 
appropriate to delay the preparation of the report as long as possible until the 
Directive has been implemented by at least the large majority of the Member States. 
Simultaneously, in order to speed up this process, the Commission initiated 
proceedings against those Member States which had not implemented the Directive. 
2. Setting up an anti-money laundering system is a complex process which not only 
involves adopting legislation to implement the Directive, but also introducing the 
necessary criminal provisions, laying down administrative regulations and 
guidelines, making .appropriate adjustments in the law enforcement structure, 
creation (in many cases) of specific units to receive information on suspicious 
transactions, training of relevant officials and employees, and establishment of 
internal control and communication procedures by credit and financial institutions. 
Since in several Member States, the necessary legislative measures have only been 
recently adopted and their anti-money laundering systems are only just starting to 
work it is extremely difficult, say impossible, to assess the effectiveness of the 
measures taken so far. 
On the other hand, the available data on the number of suspicious transactions 
reports and prosecuted money laundering cases are still scarce and uncomplete. It is 
therefore premature in this first report to make valid comparisons and to derive 
conclusions on the functioning of the anti money laundering system. 
3. The purpose of this report is not in anyway to examine the particular cases in which 
the money laundering national legislation might not be fully consistent with the 
Directive and to indicate potential infractions. Instead it attempts to make a general 
description and assessment of the way in which the cardinal provisions of this 
Community text have been implemented as well as to present the work which 
remains to be done in order to complete and enhance the European anti-money 
laundering system. It is clear that, independently from this report, the Con^issi^n. 
2©u~_ 
when necessary, will take all the measures provided for in the EU Treaties in order 
to ensure full implementation of the Directive by the Member States. 
4. The following tables are attached to this report: 
• Annex 1: Implementation of the Directive: consolidated table of 
correspondence 
Annex 2: Signature, ratification and implementation of the Vienna and 
Strasbourg Conventions 
Annex 3: Types of proceeds from criminal activities covered by the offence of 
money laundering in Member States1 penal legislation 
Annex 4: Types of proceeds from criminal activities covered by the definition 
of money laundering in the specific Member States' legislation implementing 
the Directive 
• Annex 5: Comparison between the types of proceeds from criminal activities 
covered by the Member States' criminal offence of money laundering and those 
included in the scope of the specific national legislation implementing the 
Directive 
• Annex 6: Professions and undertakings beyond the financial system covered by 
the Member States' legislation implementing the Directive 
• Annex 7: Penalties for infractions of the Member States legislation 
implementing the Directive 
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 
1. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE DIRECTIVE. 
1. As a preliminary remark it is important to underline the considerable impact of this 
Community text not only because the Directive involves for the first time 
coordination at the European Union level in the field of money laundering but also 
due to the fact that it covers an area in which a regulatory gap existed in most of 
Member States' legislation. 
3<flN _ 
2. At the same time the ratification of the Agreement for an European Economic Area 
(EEA) by the EFTA countries, except Switzerland, has extended the scope of 
application of the Directive to these countries. A report on the implementation of 
the Directive by these countries has been prepared by the EFTA Standing 
Committee. 
3. The important work carried out by the Financial Action Task Force on money 
laundering (FATF)1 has proved the role that the Directive has played in the 
implementation of its core recommendations since more than two thirds of its 
member countries are subject to the Community text. 
4. The Directive is also impacting indirectly outside the Community since all the 
association, partnership or cooperation agreements which are signed between the 
European Union and third countries systematically include a specific money 
laundering clause providing for a framework for cooperation in this area aimed at 
adopting comparable standards to those established in the Directive. A project of 
technical assistance for six2 Central and Eastern European countries has been set up 
and is going to be implanted for five3 other countries of this very sensitive region as 
a part of a PHARE Multi Country Programme for the Fight against Drugs. 
2. STATE OF PLAY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 
1. At the moment of closing this report, all Member States, bar Greece, have 
notified to the Commission of the implementation of the Directive. Ireland has 
carried out only partial implementation, although the main provisions of the 
Directive are now covered by the new Irish law. Spain, which has fully implemented 
the provisions of the Community text by a money laundering law which is in force 
and applicable, has not yet adopted the Decree which is designed to develop it. 
Greece is now preparing a draft law which is expected to be submitted to its 
Parliament by the first quarter of 1995. 
'The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) was created by the G-7 Paris Summit 
in July 1989. At present the FATF is composed of the following members: Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Gulf Cooperation Council, Hong 
Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, 
Singapour, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and the European 
Commission. All the main international organisations which are active in the field of money 
laundering also participate in the FATF work as observers. In 1990 the FATF adopted a programme 
of 40 recommendations to combat money laundering. 
2Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovak Republic 
3Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lettonia and Slovenia 
4G- _ 
3. PROHIBITION OF MONEY LAUNDERING. 
1. Article 2 of the Directive provides that money laundering shall be "prohibited" in all 
Member States. 
During discussion of the Directive, as a result of a long debate on the Community's 
competence, the Council was not able to accept the formula contained in the 
Commission proposal, which required "criminalization" of money laundering. 
However, the final effect has been substantially equivalent since all the Member 
States have laid down this prohibition by means of Criminal Law. Most Member 
States have implemented the prohibition by creating a specific money laundering 
offence, but some of them, eg. Denmark and the Netherlands, have opted for 
including money laundering in the offence of "handling stolen goods" as defined in 
very broad terms. 
As the Commission held during the second reading of the proposal in Parliament, 
the "erga omnes" prohibition contained in Article 2 plus the obligation to provide 
appropriate sanctions set out in Article 14 together with the intergovernmental 
statement joined to the Directive and published in the Official Journal were 
sufficient to ensure the objective of criminalizing money laundering. 
In spite of using the term "prohibition" in the text, the Directive has therefore had 
an unquestionable impact on the criminalization of money laundering. Such a 
criminalization constituted a pre-condition for the application of the other 
provisions contained in the text. 
2. With respect to the kind of criminal proceeds covered by the definition of money 
laundering, differences in the scope persist in the Member States' legislation even if 
a clear convergence can be noted. 
The Directive covers as a minimum the laundering of proceeds from drug related 
offences, which are the main potential source of money laundering, but does not 
remain indifferent with regard to the laundering of other criminal proceeds. Recital 
number nine encourages the Member States to "extend the effects of the Directive 
to include the proceeds of such activities (i.e.: organized crime and terrorism) to the 
extent that they are likely to result in laundering operations justifying sanctions on 
that basis", and Article 1, fifth indent defining the "criminal activities" which may be 
source of money laundering includes, besides drug offences, "any other criminal 
activity designated as such for the purposes of this Directive by each Member 
State". The Directive therefore underlines that the fight against money laundering 
should not be limited to drugs, but does not specify the other criminal activities to 
be covered since this would have required some harmonization of the definitions of 
-5 
criminal offences in the Member States national legislation as carried out by the 
Vienna Convention4 in the field of drugs. 
3. In order to describe the situation existing in the Member States with regard to the 
prohibition of money laundering a distinction must be established between the 
criminal definition of money laundering and the scope of the legislation designed to 
implement the Directive. 
Concerning the criminal definition of money laundering, as reflected in Annex 3, 
the twelve Member States have criminalized laundering of drug proceeds. While 
four countries (France, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain) have confined their 
criminal definition to laundering of drug related offences, the large majority of the 
countries have also covered laundering of proceeds from other crimes: Belgium, 
Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (laundering of 
proceeds from any criminal activity or any serious crime); Denmark, (laundering of 
proceeds from drugs, extortion, smuggling and crimes against property); and 
Greece (proceeds from drug-related offences, extortion, kidnapping, illicit arms 
trafficking and illegal removal of human organs and tissues). In all countries 
criminalization of money laundering includes the case in which the predicate offence 
took place in a foreign jurisdiction. Three Member States (France, Spain and 
Portugal) plan to expand the scope of their money laundering offence in the very 
near future. 
As described in Annex 2 some Member States have not yet ratified the Vienna and 
the Strasbourg5 Conventions. It seems to be evident that ratification and due 
implementation of such Conventions will increase convergence between the 
Member States' definitions of money laundering and will permit enhanced 
cooperation in this field. 
5. With regard to the specific legislation implementing the Directive, the situation is 
reflected in the table enclosed as Annex 4. All Member States have covered the 
minimum scope provided for in the Directive. Two Member States (Luxembourg 
and Portugal) have confined their legislation to laundering of drug proceeds while 
the other States has gone beyond. As a matter of fact, six countries cover 
laundering of proceeds from any criminal activity or from any serious crime 
4United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Vienna, 
1988 
5Council of Europe Convention on laundering, search, seizure, and confiscation of the proceeds from 
crimt. Strasbourg, 1990. 
(Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom6) and 
three countries, even if they do not have a general coverage of all criminal proceeds, 
cover in their legislation laundering of proceeds from a very wide range of criminal 
offences: Belgium (drugs, contraband, organized crime, illicit arms trafficking, 
terrorism, black labor, slave trafficking and illicit use of or trade on hormones), 
Spain (drugs, organized crime and terrorism) and France (drugs and organized 
crime). Greece has not yet implemented the Directive. 
As reflected in Annex 5, in the majority of the Member States (Germany, Ireland, 
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom6) the scope 
of the criminal offence of money laundering coincides with the extent of the specific 
legislation designed to implement the Directive. However in the other countries 
both scopes are different. So, in Belgium the criminal definition is wider than that of 
the legislation implementing the Directive while in Denmark, Spain, and France the 
situation is the opposite. 
A tendency towards a coverage of the laundering of proceeds from any serious 
crime or from any criminal activity, in both the money laundering legislation and 
criminal law, can clearly be observed in most Member States. Such a coverage 
would contribute to eliminating any hiatus between the Member States' preventive 
and punitive systems as well as to facilitating interstate cooperation in this field. 
4. INSTITUTIONS COVERED BY THE MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION: CREDIT 
AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. COVERAGE OF OTHER PROFESSIONS AND 
UNDERTAKINGS BEYOND THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM. 
1. The Directive covers any credit institution in the sense that this term is provided in 
Community banking legislation7 as well as any financial institution as defined by the 
Directive in a very broad sense. The definition of financial institution encompasses 
any undertaking whose principal activity is to carry out one or more of the relevant 
activities included in the list of the Second Banking Directive8 as well as life 
insurance. So virtually any professional financial intermediary such as credit 
institutions, investment firms, life insurance companies, credit card issuers, leasing 
6In the UK, the specific legislation implementing the Directive as well as the criminal definition of 
money laundering cover proceeds from any serious crime. However the offence of "failure to 
disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering" is confined to proceeds from drug offences 
and terrorism. 
7According to Article 1, first indent, of Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ L 322 of 17.12.77) a credit institution 
means an undertaking whose business is to receive deposits or other repayable funds from the public 
2V.Ù io gnitt-credits for its own account. 
8 Directive 89/646/EEC (JO L386 of 30.12.89) 
and factoring companies, "bureaux de changes", etc. fall under the scope of the 
money laundering legislation. The branches of third country credit and financial 
institutions located in the Community are also included. 
From the point of view of comparative law, the Money Laundering Directive is 
outstanding in this regard. In many third countries the definition of credit and 
financial institutions are much narrower and a wide range of financial intermediaries 
remains outside the scope of the money laundering provisions. However, the use of 
the list of activities annexed to the Second Banking Directive, designed for other 
purposes, as the base for the definition of financial institution in the Money 
Laundering Directive has produced difficulties, to the extent of determining which 
specific institutions should be included. 
2 In general terms all the Member States have provided in their legislation the 
institutional scope determined by the Directive. The financial system is therefore in 
principle covered. Nevertheless since such a scope includes some kinds of financial 
institutions which are not subject to supervision on prudential basis (i.e.: bureaux de 
change) most Member States have still to make arrangements in order to ensure 
effective application of the Directive to these institutions. It is clear that the simple 
inclusion of such institutions into the scope of the legislation does not by itself 
suffice to secure the application of the money laundering provisions. The 
Commission will survey the developments in this area with special attention so that 
the Directive is effectively applied to any kind of financial institution. 
3. During the discussion of the Directive it was generally acknowledged that money 
laundering cannot only be carried out through the financial system but using other 
kind of non financial professions and undertakings such as casinos, dealers in 
objects of high value or legal professions performing quasi-financial activities, etc. It 
was clear that the more protected the financial system would be against this 
phenomenon, the more money launderers would try to use alternative means to 
carry out their criminal activities. However, the difficulty of establishing an 
exhaustive list of such professions and to control how they observe the money 
laundering provisions were also underlined. The problem of control was especially 
noted since most of these professions are not regulated nor subject to supervision. 
As a compromise between these elements of discussion, Article 12 of the Directive 
provides that Member States should extend, "in whole or in part", the provisions of 
the Directive to professions and categories of undertakings beyond the financial 
system "which are particularly likely to be used for money laundering purposes". 
Although this provision constitutes an obligation instead of a simple 
recommendation, the broad wording of the Article allows the Member States a 
large measure of discretion in its application. 
4. In order to coordinate as much as possible the application of this provision, Article 
13 (d) confers on the Contact Committee, created by the Directive, the 
8-
responsibility to examine "whether a profession or a category of undertaking should 
be included in the scope of Article 12 where it has been established that such 
profession or category of undertaking has been used in a Member State for money 
laundering". 
At present the Contact Committee is examining the possibility of agreeing on a 
common list of professions and categories of undertaking to be covered, but the 
task is not easy. It is clear that money laundering can be carried out through 
virtually any kind of business. However this does not mean that the provisions of 
the Directive should be applied to any kind of professions and undertakings 
regardless of the real risk involved (i.e.: the fact that pizzerias were involved in a 
very known money laundering case does not justify a requirement for the 
identification of all the pizzerias' customers). 
Any decision in this regard should keep the balance between the burdens to be 
imposed and the real risk of money laundering. It should also consider the specific 
obligations to be applied to each profession and the appropriate system to enforce 
them. 
5. The present situation with regard to non financial professions covered by the 
Member States' money laundering legislation is presented in Annex 6. Six Member 
States apply in whole or in part their legislation implementing the Directive to some 
categories of non-financial professions: Denmark (gaming casinos), Germany 
(gaming casinos, dealers in precious metals, antique auctioneers and any trader and 
profession under certain circumstances), Spain (gaming casinos and real-estate 
dealers), France (gaming casinos and any professional who advises upon, executes 
or controls operations involving capital movements), the Netherlands (gaming 
casinos) and the United Kingdom (the duty to report suspicious transactions 
extends to all persons). In some countries as Spain the Government is empowered 
by law to subject other categories of professions to the money laundering 
provisions. The Portuguese authorities envisage to broaden the scope of the money 
laundering legislation in the next future in order to cover some non financial 
professions, in particular, gaming casinos. 
6. The implementation of Article 12 of the Directive is therefore heterogeneous as a 
result of the high degree of discretion that Member States are granted in this 
provision. Three main areas of professions seem to have drawn the attention of the 
Member States' legislators, the gaming industry (casinos), dealers in object of high 
value (real-estate, precious metals, jewelry and art/antiques) and legal professions 
carrying out financial activities (lawyers, notaries, and other legal professionals). 
Other countries have chosen a wider approach by imposing some of the obligations 
of the Directive such as the identification requirements (Germany) or the reporting 
duty (United Kingdom.) ;o a very wide range of subjects (Germany: all traders and 
proicasiohs) or (United Kingdom: all persons). 
-9 
7. It is clear that further work needs to be done in the framework of the Contact 
Committee created by the Directive in order to increase convergence between the 
Member States in this field. The attention should be focused on the three main 
above-mentioned areas: the gaming industry, dealers in objects of high value and 
legal professions carrying out financial activities, and the questions concerning the 
specific provisions to be applied to each profession should be carefully examined. 
This exercise should take into account the developments in wider international fora 
such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). 
5. IDENTIFICATION OF CUSTOMERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS, KEEPING RECORDS 
OF IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS. 
1. The principle of "know your customer", which underlies the identification 
requirements provided for in Article 3 of the Directive, is of paramount importance 
in order to prevent money laundering and permit investigations in cases of this 
nature. A necessary complement of this provision is the obligation to keep records 
of identity documents for a period of at least five years after the relationship with 
the customer has ended, as provided for in Article 4 of the Directive. This Article 
also specifies the need to keep supporting evidence and records of the transactions 
for a period of at least five years following execution of such transactions. 
As presented in Annex 1 the Member States have incorporated the obligations set 
out in Article 3 relating to the identification of credit and financial institutions' 
customers when entering into business relations (i.e.: opening accounts or offering 
safe custody facilities, etc.), carrying out one-off transactions over a certain 
threshold, and when there is any suspicion of money laundering regardless of the 
transaction amount. In the same way, they have transposed the provision contained 
in this Article on identification of beneficial owners. 
The slight differences in the Member States national thresholds for identification of 
customers in one-off transactions is a result consistent with the Directive since 
Article 15 allows stricter provisions to be adopted than those harmonized in this 
Community text. All the thresholds adopted by the Member States in this regard 
respect the limit of 15000 ECU provided for in the Directive. Seven countries have 
introduced stricter thresholds than the Directive: Belgium (10000 ECU), France 
(50000 FF, approx. 7500 ECU), Germany (20000 DM, approx. 10500 ECU), Italy 
(20 million LIT, approx. 10700 ECU), Ireland (10000 IR£, approx. 7900 ECU), 
Luxembourg (500000 FL, approx. 12500 ECU) and Portugal (2500000 ESC, 
approx. 12500 ECU). Denmark and the UK both have 15000 ECU. These slights 
variations should not constitute in principle an obstacle for the efficiency of the 
European anti-money laundering system. As a matter of fact identification should in 
any case be required regardless of *hc .amount whenever there is a suspicion of 
money laundering according to Article 3(6) of the Directive. 
-10 
2. The exoneration from the identification requirements in small insurance operations 
and occupational pension schemes under certain conditions, as provided for in 
Article 3(3) and (4) of the Directive, were introduced by the Council following an 
amendment proposed by the European Parliament which was aimed at facilitating 
insurance operations involving very low risk of money laundering. 
Since the national legislations having included these exemptions have subject them 
to the strict conditions provided for in the Directive, there is no apparent reason to 
suppose that such exemptions can constitute loopholes in the anti-money laundering 
system. In any case three Member States (Spain, France and Italy) have not used at 
all such an option and one Member State (Belgium) has only used it partially. Four 
countries have therefore been stricter than the Directive on this point. 
3 Article 3 (7) of the Directive exonerates credit and financial institutions from the 
identification requirements in the case where the counterpart of the operation "is 
also a credit or financial institution covered by this Directive". The rationale of this 
provision is that credit and financial institutions do not need to apply the 
identification procedures when the counterpart is another financial intermediary 
subject itself to equivalent obligations. Such equivalence is only recognized by the 
provision in the case where the counterpart in question is a credit or a financial 
institution subject to the Directive. 
This restrictive criteria of equivalence, which was considered as the only providing 
the necessary legal certainty at the moment of adopting the Directive, may present 
some difficulties for application when the counterpart of the operation is a credit or 
a financial institution located in a third country having appropriate anti-money 
laundering standards. According to Article 3 (7) such institutions would not benefit 
from the exoneration and should therefore be subject to the identification 
requirements since they cannot be considered as institutions "covered" by the 
Directive. 
Three Member States have however opened the possibility of exonerating under 
certain conditions third country credit and financial institutions: Luxembourg and 
the United Kingdom require these institutions to be subject to equivalent obligations 
to the Directive; the Netherlands have empowered their Government to exonerate 
other categories of institutions. 
It seems very unlikely that an agreement can be reached on a Community 
harmonized list of countries whose money laundering legislation could be 
considered equivalent to the Directive. Such a list would require an on-going 
evaluation exercise which would include many countries from the different regions 
of the world and should consider not only their adopted legislation but the way in 
which tK., r applied. For instance. FA.T* n>ertibership would not suffice by itself to 
ensure equivalence since not all the members of this Group are at the same stage in 
11 
the implementation of the FATF recommendations. The Contact Committee on 
money laundering has already discussed this issue without yet having found a 
solution. The reason for this lack of results is probably that the criteria of 
equivalence adopted by the Directive (institutions covered by its text) is likely to be 
the only which, because of its objectivity, is susceptible of being accepted at 
Community level. Any other potential alternative solution would probably only be 
applicable at Member State's level on a case by case basis. 
Another provision of the Directive which has produced some problems of 
application is Article 3(8). This Article allows the Member States to presume that 
the identification requirements regarding insurance operations have been fulfilled 
"when it is established that the payment for the transaction is to be debited from an 
account opened in the customer's name with a credit institution subject to this 
Directive". The rationale of this provision is that insurance companies should not be 
obliged to follow the identification procedures when the customer has already been 
identified by a credit institution holding the account through which the payment 
must be carried out. 
The Council did not accept on this point the Commission's reexamined proposal 
according to which the above mentioned provision should not only apply to 
insurance operations but to any financial transaction (except opening of bank 
accounts). Rather, the Council's concern was to exclude a potential loophole in the 
anti-money laundering system. The Commission however considered that such a 
extension would have, without putting in jeopardy the safety of the system, afforded 
more flexibility in the application of the identification requirements in general. This 
applies especially to "remote" (non face-to-face) financial transactions which are 
becoming more frequent in the framework of cross-border operations or in 
transactions carried out through electronic means. 
In implementing the Directive, seven Member States have used the above-
mentioned option contained in Article 3(8): Denmark, Germany, Ireland, 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Among these 
countries, two of them (the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) have given the 
exoneration a wider scope than that in the Directive: the Netherlands have included 
insurance operations and financial services related securities trading and the United 
Kingdom has covered in the exemption one-off transactions and business 
relationships other than the opening of bank and building society accounts when it is 
reasonable that the operation is carried out on a remote basis. In Denmark, the 
exoneration only applies when the premium is paid by electronic means. 
The problem of the scope given to this exemption must be considered in the 
framework of the broader issue of the identification procedures to be applied in the 
case of remote financ'"1 ooer?»tions. This question h»- L^ en1 discussed by the Contact 
Committee on Money Laundering aiiti by the FATF. The FATF, for the time being, 
has abandoned the discussion without coming to an agreement on the possibility of 
12-
accepting alternative ways of identification. The Contact Committee is still 
discussing this difficult problem on the basis of the replies to a questionnaire 
prepared by the Commission. Once the work in this body comes to end it will be 
possible to assess to what extent an alternative solution in this regard could be 
envisaged. 
6. ENHANCED DILIGENCE BY CREDIT AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 
1. Article 5 of the Directive provides that credit and financial institutions should 
"examine with special attention any transaction which they regard as particularly 
likely, by its nature, to be related to money laundering". Such an obligation of 
enhanced diligence must be distinguished from the duty to report suspicious 
transactions. As a matter of fact, examining with special attention dubious 
transactions is a previous and necessary condition to forestall suspicious money 
laundering operations. The obligation of enhanced diligence comes into play 
therefore when there is not yet specific suspicion of money laundering. It is clear 
that this obligation should be put in practice through appropriate internal control 
procedures as the Directive provides for in Article 11. 
2. The way in which the enhanced diligence provision has been implemented varies 
considerably from one Member State to another (see Annex 1). 
In France, which adopted its legislation before the formal adoption of the Directive, 
any operation over a certain amount which is presented in unusually complex 
conditions and does not seem to have any economic justification nor any licit 
purpose must be specially examined by credit or financial institutions which should 
ask their customer about the origin and destination of these sums as well as about 
the purpose of the transaction and the identity of the recipient. The characteristics 
of the operation are recorded in writing and kept by the financial institution 
available to the competent authorities. Belgium and Portugal have established a very 
similar system to France. 
Spain and Luxembourg have incorporated into their legislation a provision along the 
lines of the Directive without obliging credit and financial institutions to record in 
writing the result of the examination. Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands 
and the United Kingdom have not explicitly transposed this Article apparently 
because the principle of enhanced diligence is implicitly encompassed in the 
implementation of other provisions of the Directive, in particular Article 11 (1) 
which requires "adequate procedures of internal control and communication in 
order to forestall and prevent operations related to money laundering". In some of 
these countries the violation of the enhanced diligence duty may be considered as a 
money laundering offence fr. «necH cases. 
13-
These differences in implementing the principle of enhanced diligence by Member 
States should not constitute in principle a major difficulty for the functioning of the 
anti-money laundering system, provided that the relevant authorities duly supervise 
the adequacy of internal control procedures which credit and financial institutions 
should establish according to the Directive. 
7. CREDIT AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS' DUTY TO COOPERATE WITH THE 
AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR COMBATING MONEY LAUNDERING. 
1. The credit and financial institutions' duty to cooperate with the authorities 
responsible for combating money laundering, as provided for in Articles 6 and 7 is 
probably the cornerstone of the Directive. These provisions lift the credit and 
financial institutions' professional secrecy in the field of money laundering. 
Moreover, the cooperation duty is established in a doubly passive and active way. 
Credit and financial institutions are not only obliged to provide information when 
requested by the relevant authorities but also to inform them "on their own initiative 
of any fact which might be an indication of money laundering". 
Article 10 extends to the prudential authorities the duty to cooperate with the 
authorities responsible for combating money laundering. 
2. As presented in Annex 1, all the Member States having implemented the Directive, 
including those with the strongest traditions of bank secrecy, have fully endorsed 
this important principle. While the two "common law" countries (United Kingdom 
and Ireland), as well as Denmark, have implemented this obligation by Criminal 
Law (failure to report constitutes a criminal offence), the other countries have opted 
for using Administrative Law (failure to report constitutes an administrative 
infraction). 
Two Member States have gone even beyond the Directive by expanding the 
objective or the subjective scope of the reporting obligation. So the Netherlands 
have established, together with the reporting of suspicious transactions, a system of 
routine communication of some specific operations (cash and giro transactions and 
the physical surrender or the issue of securities over specific thresholds), and the 
United Kingdom has extended the obligation to report suspicious transactions to 
any individual or legal person. 
3. The Directive, aware of the Community competence and of the principle of 
subsidiarity, does not intent to harmonize related law enforcement aspects. These 
include the nature and organization of the authorities which should receive the 
reports, the conditions in which a suspicious operation may be suspended, the 
procedures to be followed by the relevant authorities once the informa^'-, has been 
transmitted and the sharing of information with other national and foreign 
authorities. 
-14 
However, it is clear that appropriate coordination on these and other matters related 
to law enforcement would contribute to reinforcing the efficiency of the reporting 
scheme in particular and of the anti-money laundering system as a whole. For 
instance, the establishment of Central Reporting Units by all the Member States, the 
setting up of procedures to permit the exchange of information among these Units, 
the adoption of appropriate rules on seizure and confiscation of criminal proceeds 
and the enhancement of cooperation among Member States' judicial, police, 
customs and other competent authorities would be of special importance in this 
regard. 
To this end, the Member States should make every effort to ratify and implement 
the Vienna and the Strasbourg Conventions, which harmonize, inter alia, substantial 
aspects of criminal law and legal assistance procedures in the field of money 
laundering. Moreover, the European Union should make full use of all the 
possibilities offered in Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty regarding judicial and 
police cooperation, including the use of Europol where appropriate, in accordance 
with the "Justice and Home Affairs" Action Plan adopted by the European Council 
on 10-11 December 1993. In this context the Member State should take due 
account of the recommendations on money laundering adopted by the Justice and 
Home Affairs Council in Copenhagen on 1-2 June 1993 . 
8. CREDIT AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS' DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY. 
EXONERATION FROM LIABILITY 
1. Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive are aimed at establishing the minimum conditions 
so that the reporting system can work. So Article 8 prohibits the disclosure to the 
customer concerned or to any other third party that information has been 
transmitted to the authorities or that a money laundering investigation is being 
carried out, so that the results of the inquiry cannot be jeopardized. Article 9 
exonerates credit and financial institutions and their directors and employees from 
any liability arising from the breach of any restriction on disclosure of information 
provided that such a disclosure is carried out in good faith. This exoneration is a 
legal consequence of the duty of cooperation established by the Directive. 
2. As reflected in Annex 1, all the Member States having implemented the Directive 
have introduced into their legislation the relevant clauses in this respect. Two 
Member States have interpreted Article 9 of the Directive in the sense that the 
exoneration clause should not apply not only to disclosures carried out in bad faith 
(as it is explicitly mentioned in the text of the Article) but also to reports made by 
negligence. In Germany the exoneration clause will apply "unless the report has 
been made in a deliberately or gross negligently false manner" and in the 
Netherlands "unless, considering all facts and circumstances, it is plausible *hr*i ro 
disclosure should have been made". 
-15 
9. INTERNAL CONTROL PROCEDURES AND TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR 
EMPLOYEES. 
1. As provided for in Article 11 §1 of the Directive Member States shall ensure that 
credit and financial institutions establish adequate procedures of internal control and 
communication in order to prevent and forestall money laundering operations. 
Article 11 §2 obliges these institutions to ensure the participation of their relevant 
employees in anti-money laundering programmes. These provisions are of the 
utmost importance to ensure the fulfilment of the other obligations contained in the 
Directive. 
2. Although as shown in Annex 1 the Member States have implemented these 
provisions into their national legislations the full completion of the Directive on this 
point requires, in addition to adopting the necessary legislation, continued action by 
the relevant authorities in order to guide, support and supervise credit and financial 
institutions with regard to the establishment of appropriate internal control 
procedures and training programmes. 
This wide range of responsibilities to be played by the authorities, which should not 
disregard the particularities of the different kind of financial activities (banking, 
insurance, securities, etc.) necessitates appropriate coordination between the 
national bodies having competence in this field as well as close cooperation with the 
relevant professional, associations. 
10. SANCTIONS 
1. As provided for in Article 14 the Member States shall take appropriate measures to 
ensure full application of all the provisions of the Directive and in particular to 
determine the penalties to be applied for infringements of the measures adopted 
pursuant to this text. Due implementation of this provision is a key point for the 
application of the Directive. 
2. Annex 7 presents a table containing the penalties for infringements of each 
provision of the Directive as provided for in the Member States' national legislation. 
Infringement of the prohibition of money laundering (Article 2 of the Directive) is 
considered a criminal offence in all Member States and punished with imprisonment 
or with imprisonment and fines. Infringement of the other provisions of the 
Directive are punished in most countries with administrative penalties (i.e.: fines or 
other sanctions imposed by administrative authorities), although in some Member 
States (Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) penal 
sanctions (i.e. imprisonment or penal fines) are applied in some cases. In the 
countries (e.g. Luxembourg) where the money lauûuet'ng offence may be 
committed by negligence (i.e. by disregarding professional obligations) 
16 
infringements of the provisions of the Directive may be punished as a crime of 
money laundering under certain circumstances. 
The specific sanctions provided for the same infraction are rather different from one 
Member States to another. In order to allow comparison the fine amounts have 
been expressed approximately in ECU. As shown in the table some Member States 
have defined the specific penalties assigned to each infraction in detail while others 
provide for unlimited fines or have referred to sanctions established in the relevant 
prudential legislation. In some cases the legislations does not specify the penalties to 
be applied to certain infractions. 
Although the Directive does not intend to harmonize the specific penalties to be 
imposed, the Commission considers that, according to Article 14 and to the 
jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, the following principles must be 
observed: 
principle of effectiveness, the sanctions should produce a clear and concrete 
result. 
principle of proportionality: the sanctions should be "appropriate" to the 
infraction committed. 
principle of dissuasion, the sanctions should be sufficiently dissuasive to 
prevent infringements. 
The Commission will especially monitor the application by the Member States of 
these principles, will request in the case of doubt additional information and will 
start when necessary the infraction procedures provided for in the Treaties. 
11. AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE APPLICATION OF THE 
DmECTIVE 
1. The prevention of money laundering is a factor in the preservation of soundness and 
stability in the financial system, as the first recital of the Directive declares. 
However, as stated in the fourth recital, it is not exclusively nor even predominately 
a question of prudential control. The Directive assigns the principal role in 
countering money laundering to the "authorities responsible for combating money 
laundering", which are mentioned in Articles, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, while the prudential 
authorities, called "competent authorities" by Article 2, are given a limited role in 
Article 10. The Community text does not define the "authorities responsible for 
combating money laundering". The Member States are given discretion to decide 
which authority or authorities are to carry out this role. They may choose io use 
extant law enforcement authorities or to create one or more authorities for this 
17 
purpose. Nothing precludes the Member States to assign to the prudential 
authorities appropriate duties in this field. 
2. As regards the role of the home/host authorities, a proper interpretation of the 
Directive leads to the conclusion that the host authorities are given primary 
competence for controlling the obligations provided for in this Community text. No 
actual mechanism for cooperation between Member States' money laundering 
authorities is provided for by the Directive due to the lack of Community 
competence in the penal field. Cooperation between these authorities will take place 
in the framework of the bilateral or multilateral conventions on police, 
administrative and judicial assistance as well as of the cooperation provided for in 
the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty. 
Cooperation between host and home Member States' prudential authorities on 
specific cases of money laundering may be necessary when, as a result of these 
cases, some supervisory measures were required in order to ensure the soundness 
and stability of a credit or financial institution. Such a cooperation would take place 
in the framework of the already existing mechanisms provided for in the financial 
services directives and in the bilateral agreements. 
3. The determination of the particular authorities responsible for combating money 
laundering in each Member State as well as the specific competence of these 
authorities have been left by the Directive to the Member States' discretion and are 
therefore not covered by this report. 
4. Some Member States have decided to give to their legislation implementing the 
Directive an extraterritorial effect by which their financial institutions' branches 
located in another Member State would be subject to the home country rules. 
Potential conflicts of laws between home/host countries legislation would be 
avoided by assuming that, according to the principle of territoriality which inspires 
the Money Laundering Directive, home country legislation may only be applied to 
the extent that it is not in conflict with the host country rules. 
III. CONCLUSIONS 
1. The implementation of the Directive has had an obvious impact on the establishment 
of anti-money laundering systems by the Member States. At the moment that the 
Commission transmitted its proposal for a Directive to the Council (March 1990), 
money laundering was a specific criminal offence in only one Member State and the 
financial systems in the Community were not subject to mandatory rules aimed at 
preventing this phenomenon and ensuring cooperation with the relevant authorities. 
18 
At the time of drawing up this report, money laundering is a criminal offence in the 
twelve member countries. The eleven States having implementing the Directive 
have all set up rules aimed at protecting their financial systems from money 
laundering and their credit and financial institutions are obliged to cooperate 
actively with the relevant authorities in this regard. 
2. As regards the status of money laundering under penal law, the twelve Member 
States have made the laundering of drug proceeds a criminal offence and eight of 
them have criminalized laundering of proceeds from any criminal activity or from 
serious crime. Three among the four countries whose money laundering definitions 
are still confined to drug proceeds are planning to expand their money laundering 
offence in the very near future. 
3. With respect to the specific legislation implementing the Directive, ten Member 
States have gone beyond the mandatory scope of the Community text, as 
recommended in its recitals, and have covered laundering of criminal proceeds other 
than drugs. Six countries cover laundering of proceeds from any criminal activity 
and three countries, even if they do not have a general coverage, include in their 
money laundering legislation a very wide range of criminal proceeds. 
4. The adopted legislations apply to the whole financial system (credit institutions, life-
insurance companies, investment firms, "bureaux de change", credit and card 
issuers, leasing and factoring companies, etc.) as provided for in the Directive which 
refers to the Annex of the Second Banking Directive. Such a broad coverage is 
outstanding in comparative law. Nevertheless some Member States still need to 
develop their legislation in order to ensure application by these institutions of their 
obligations in the field of money laundering. This requires special work with regard 
to those institutions which are not subject to supervision on a prudential basis such 
as the "bureaux de change" in most countries. 
5. On the professions beyond the financial system and in spite of the large margin of 
discretion granted in Article 12, six Member States apply, in whole or in part, their 
legislation to some categories of non-financial professions . The main areas covered 
are the gaming industry (casinos), dealers in object of high value (real-estate, 
precious metals, jewelry and art/antiques) and legal professions carrying out 
financial activities (lawyers, notaries, and other legal professions). The specific 
professions included and the obligations applied to them vary considerably from one 
country to another. 
6. In all Member States the adopted legislation provides for the credit and financial 
institutions' duty of active cooperation with the authorities responsible for 
combating money laundering and therefore the full lifting of professional secrecy in 
this field. Nevertheless, since the Directive does not intent to harmonize the !av> 
enforcement procedures, matters such as the nature and organization of the 
authorities which should receive the reports on suspicious transactions, the 
19 
conditions in which the authorities may suspend a suspicious operation, and the 
sharing of information between the authorities combatting money laundering, have 
been regulated according to each Member State's discretion. 
7. Although considerable work has been carried out by the Member States in order to 
set up an anti-money laundering system along the principles set out in the Directive, 
efforts at national level are still necessary especially in the following areas: 
Refining their surveillance systems in order to ensure effective application of 
their money laundering legislation by all the institutions covered by the 
Directive; 
Guiding, supporting and surveying credit and financial institutions in 
establishing appropriate internal control and communication procedures and in 
setting up training programmes. This includes establishing guidelines adapted 
to the different kinds of financial activity in coordination with the relevant 
competent authorities and professional associations. 
Guidance in defining patterns of money laundering methods and suspicious 
operations; 
Reinforcing cooperation between the different authorities and bodies having 
responsibilities in the field of money laundering. 
8. At a Community level the action should be focused on the following directions: 
The Commission will continue to take all the necessary measures to ensure that 
the Directive is fully and duly implemented by all Member States. Special 
attention is paid to the transparency and effectiveness of sanctions concerning 
the different provisions of the Directive. 
The Commission and the Member States should pursue their work in the 
framework of the Contact Committee on Money Laundering in order to 
procure a more coordinated application of the Directive, and in particular, of 
its Article 12 dealing with professions beyond the financial system. 
In the framework of the Contact Committee, the Commission and the Member 
States should also continue their work on the problem of applying the 
identification requirements in remote operations in order to find alternative 
procedures which afford the appropriate balance of flexibility and safety. This 
exercise should take as much account as possible of any future developments 
in the FATF in this area. 
20 
Beyond the scope of the Directive, enhancing the European anti-money laundering 
system calls for increased coordination and cooperation among the Member States 
in the administrative, police and judicial fields. If matters such as defining the scope 
of the money laundering offence, the sharing of information with other Member 
States' authorities, legal assistance, and measures concerning seizure and 
confiscation of criminal proceeds were regulated exclusively at national level 
without taking into account the necessary coordination and cooperation between 
the Members of the European Union, such a situation would have a negative impact 
in the fight against money laundering due to the transnational dimension of this 
phenomenon. 
Therefore, the Member States should make every effort to ratify and implement the 
Vienna and the Strasbourg Conventions, which harmonize, inter alia, substantial 
aspects of criminal law and legal assistance procedures in the field of money 
laundering. Moreover, the European Union should make full use of all the 
possibilities offered in Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty with regard to judicial and 
police cooperation, including the use of Europol where appropriate as provided for 
by the "Justice and Home Affairs" Action Plan adopted by the European Council on 
10-11 December 1993. In this context, Member States should take due account of 
the recommendations on money laundering adopted by the Justice and Home 
Affairs Council in Copenhagen on 1-2 June 1993. 
******** 
ANNEX 1 Implementation of the Money Launderins Directive (91/308/EEC) Consolidated Table of Correspondence page 1 
Article of 
i Directive 
1 
, (indents 1,2) 
2 
1 (indents 3 
and 5) 
3(1) 
3(2) 
3(3) 
3(4) 
3(5) 
3(6) Brief Description 
of 
Content 
Instituti *ns covered by the 
. directive. 
Prohibition of Money Laundering. 
Identification of Customers when 
entering into business relations, 
including opening of accounts 
and offering safe custody 
facilities. 
Identification of customers in 
one-off transactions. 
Exemption from identification 
requirements in the case of small 
insurance operations. 
Optional exemption 
from identification requirements 
in the case of employment 
oensions. 
Reasonable measures to identify 
the beneficial owner. 
Identification in any case where 
there exists a suspicion of 
money laundering. Corresponding Article in National Legislation 
BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY GREECE SPAIN FRANCE 
Article 2 of A 
Article 3(1),(2) of A 
and Articles 42, 43, 
43bis and 505 of B 
Article 4(1-) of A 
Article 4(2-) of A 
Article 6(2) of A 
Option not used 
Article 5 of A 
Article 4(2) of A Article 1 of C 
Articles 191a, 284 
and 300c of D 
Article 2(1) of C 
Article 4(1) of C 
Article 4(2),(3) 
ofC 
Article 5(1) of C 
Article 5(1) of C 
Article 6(1) of C 
Articles 4(4) and 5(2) 
ofC §lofE 
§ 261 of F 
§2 of E 
§ 154,par2ofFF 
§2(l)(2)and(4)ofE 
§4(1) of E 
§4(2) of E 
§8(1) of E 
§6 of E -
Article 394A of G 
-
-
-
-
-
-Article 2(1) of H 
Article 1(1),(2) of H 
and 
Article 344bis(j) of I 
Article 3(1) of H 
Article 3(1) of H 
Exemption not used 
Option not used 
Article 3(1) of H 
Article 3(1) of H Article 1 of J 
Article 222-38 of M 
Article 12 of J 
Article 3 of K 
Article 12 of J 
Exemption not used 
Option not used 
Article 12 of J and 
Article 3 of K 
-
A Belgium 1 : Act on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering (11/1/93) 
B Belgium 2: Belgian Criminal Code 
C Denmark 1 .Danish Act on measures to prevent money laundering ( Act No. 348; 9/6/93) 
D Denmark 2: Danish Penal Code 
E Germany l-.Act on the Detection of Proceeds from Serious Crimes (25/10/93) • 
F Germany 2: German Penal Code 
FF: Germany 3: Fiscal Code 
FFF Germany 4: Commercial Code 
G Greece l : Greek Penal Cude H Spain 1 : Act 18 of 28/12:1993 concerning specific measures to prevent money laundering 
I Spain 2: Spanish Penal Code 
II Spain 3 
J France 1 : Act No. 90-614 of 12/7/90 relating to the involvement of financial institutions in the fight against 
the laundering of capitals proceeding from narcotics traficking 
K France 2: Decree No. 91-160 of 13/2/91 
L France 3: Regulation No. 91-07 of 15/2/91 
M France 4: French Penal Code 
ANNEX 1 Implementation of the Money Launderins Directive (91/308/EEC) Consolidated Table of Correspondence page 2 
1 Article of 
| Directive 
I 
3(7) 
3(8) 
4(1) 
4(2) 
5 
6 and 7 
8 
9 Bîi'ef Description 
of 
Content 
Exemption from identification 
requirements for credit and finan­
cial institutions which are them­
selves covi red bv the Directive. 
Optional xemption from LD. 
requiremenia m insurance operations 
wnen payment is made from accounts 
subject to this Directive. 
Duty to keep a copy or the 
references of identification 
required for a minimum of 
five vears. 
Duty to keep records and evidence 
of transactions for minimum of 
five years. 
Duty to use enhanced diligence in 
transactions most likely to be 
related to money laundering. 
Duty of credit and financial 
. institutions to cooperate with 
authorities and to report 
suspicious transactions. 
Duty of confidentiality of credit 
and financial institutions in 
respect to investigations being 
carried out. 
Exemption from liability for 
employees disclosing information 
on the basis of this directive in 
eood faith. Corresponding Article in National Legislation 
BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY GREECE SPAIN FRANCE 
Article 6 of A 
Option not used 
Article 7(1-)(2-) of A 
Article 7(3-) of A 
Article 8 of A 
Articles 12, 13, 14, 
15§landl8ofA 
Article 19 of A 
Article 20 of A Article 8(1) of C 
Article 5 in relation 
to 4 and 7 of C 
Article 9(1) of C 
Article 9(2) of C 
Article 10 of C 
Article 12(1) of C 
Article 12(2) of C §2(3) and 8(2) of E 
§4(4) of E 
§9(l),(3)ofE 
§ 257, 238 and 239 
ofFFF 
-
§11(1) and (2) of E 
§11(3) of E 
§ 12 of E -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Article 3(1) of H 
Option not used 
Article 3(3) of H 
Article 3(3) of H 
Article 3(2) of H 
Article 3(4),(5) of H 
Article 3(6) of H 
Article 4 of H Article 3 of K 
Option not used 
Article 15 of J and 
Article 2 of L 
Article 15 of J and 
Article 2 of L 
Article 14 of J, 
Article 4 of K and 
Article 4 of L 
Articles 3, 6 of J and 
Article 3 of L 
Article 10 of J 
Article 9 of J 
A Belgium 1 : Act on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering (11/1/93) 
B Belgium 2: Belgian Criminal Code 
C Denmark l:Danish Act on measures to prevent money laundering ( Act No. 348; 9/6/93) 
D Denmark 2:Danish Penal Code 
E Germany 1 : Act on the Detection of Proceeds from Serious Crimes (25/10/93) 
F Germany 2: German Penal Code 
FF: Germany 3: Fiscal Code 
FFF Germany 4: Commercial Code 
G Greece 1 : Greek Penal Code H Spain 1: Act 18 of 28/12:1993 concerning specific measures to prevent money laundering 
I Spain 2: Spanish Penal Code 
II Spain 3 
J France 1: Act No. 90-614 of 12/7/90 relating to the involvement of financial instinitions in the fight against 
the laundering of capitals proceeding from narcotics traficking 
K France 2: Decree No. 91-160 of 13/2/91 
L France 3: Regulation No. 91-07 of 15/2/91 
M France 4: French Penal Code 
ANNEX 1 Implementation of the Money Maunderins Directive (91/308/EEC) Consolidated Table of Correspondence page 3 
Article of 
Directive 
i0 
s 
-1(1) 
11(2) 
12 
14 
14 BrierDescription 
of 
Content 
Obligation of prudential 
authorises to report suspicious 
transactions. 
Duty of credit and financial 
instits. to set up internal control 
and communication procedures 
for the i revention of monev 
Duty of i TBdikaTH^financial 
institution, to provide training 
progr?:nmes for their employees. 
Extension of provisions of the 
Directive to professions and 
undertakings other than credit 
and financial institutions. 
Sanctions for infractions of the 
obligations provided for in 
Article 2 
Sanctions for infractions of the 
obligations provided for in the 
Directive other than those in 
Article 2 Corresponding Article in National Legislation 
BELGIUM DENMARK GERMANY GREECE SPAIN FRANCE 
Article 21 of A 
Article 10 of A 
Article 9 of A 
-
Articles 42, 43, 43bis 
and 505 of B 
Article 22 of A Article 11(1) of C 
Article 3(1) of C 
Article 3(1) ofC 
Law on casinos 
Articles 191a, 284 
and 300c of D 
Article 13 of C § 13 of E 
§14(l)(2)ofE 
§14(l)(2)ofE 
§3(1) and 
§6 of E 
§261 of F 
§17 of E -
-
-
-
Article 394A of G 
-Article 16 of H 
Article 3(7) of H 
Article 3(8) of H 
Article 2(2) of H 
Article 344bis(j) of I 
Articles 5 to 12 of H Article 16 of J 
Articles 2 and 6 of L 
Articles 2 and 6 of L 
Articles 2 and 18 of J 
Article 222-38 of M 
Articles 7 and 17 of J 
A Belgium 1: Act on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering (11/1/93) 
B Belgium 2 : Belgian Criniinal Code 
C Denmark 1:Danish Acton measures to prevent money laundering ( Act No. 348; 9/6/93) 
D Denmark 2:Dartish Penal Code 
E Germany 1 :Act on the Detection of Proceeds from Serious Crimes (25/10/93) 
F Germany 2: German Penal Code 
FF: Germany 3: Fiscal Code 
FFF Germany 4: Commercial Code 
G Greece 1 : Greek Penal Code H Spain 1: Act 18 of 28/12:1993 concerning specific measures to prevent money laundering 
I Spain 2: Spanish Penal Code 
II Spain 3 
J France 1: Act No. 90-614 of 12/7/90 relating to the involvement of financial institutions in the fight against 
the laundering of capitals proceeding from narcotics traficking 
K France 2: Decree No. 91-160 of 13/2/91 
L France 3: Regulation No. 91-07 of 15/2/91 
M France 4: French Penal Code 
ANNEX 1 Implementation of the Money Launderins Directive (91/308/EEC) Consolidated Table of Correspondence page 4 
Article of 
Directive 
1 
(indents 1,2) 
2, 
1 (indents 3 
ai d 5) 
3(1) 
3(2) 
3(3) 
3(4) 
3(5) 
3(6) Brief Description 
of 
Content 
Institutions covered by the 
Directive. 
Prohibition of Money Laundering. 
Identification of Customers when 
entering into business relations, 
including opening of accounts 
and offt ine safe custody 
. -cilities. 
Identification of customers in 
one-off transactions. 
Exemption from identification 
requirements in the case of small 
insurance operations. 
Optional exemption 
from identification requirements 
in the case of employment 
Densions. 
Reasonable measures to identify 
the beneficial owner. 
Identification in any case where 
there exists a suspicion of 
money laundering. Corresponding Article in National Legislation 
IRELAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS PORTUGAL UK 
Article 32(1) of N 
Article 31 of N 
Article 32(3) of N 
Article 32(3) of N 
Article 32(7) of N 
Article 32(7) of N 
Article 32(5) of N 
Article 32(3) of N Article 1 of Q 
Article 648bis of O 
Article 2.4 of Q 
Article 2.1,2.2 of Q 
Exemption not used 
Option not used 
Article 4.1 of P 
-Article 38(1) of R 
Article 38(3) of R 
and Article 8-1 of S 
Article 39(1) of R 
Article 39(2) of R 
Article 89-2(2) of SS 
Article 89-2(3) of SS 
Article 39(3) of R 
Article 39(4) of R Article l(l)(a) of U 
Articles 416, 417, 
417bisof X 
Articles l(l)(b), 2(1) 
and 3 ofU 
Articles 5,6 of W 
Articles 2(1) and 3 
ofU 
Article 3 of W 
Article l(l)(b)(5) 
ofU 
Articles land 2 of W 
Article 2(3) of U 
Article 5(4) of U 
Article 2(2) of U Article 2 of Y 
Article 23 of Z 
Article 3(1) of Y 
Article 3(2) of Y 
Article 4(1),(2) of Y 
Article 4(l)(b) of Y 
Article 6 of Y 
Article 5 of Y Article 4 of AA 
Articles 93, 102 of 
BB 
Article 23 A, 24, of 
C_Artl4ofDD 
Article 7(1),(2) of 
AA 
Article 7(1),(4),(5) of 
AA 
Article 10 of AA 
Article 10(l)(e) of 
AA 
Article 9 of AA 
Article 7(3) of AA 
N Ireland 1: Irish Penal Code 
O Italy 1 : Italian Penal Code as amended by Law No. 55 of 19th March 1990. 
P Italy 2: Act No. 197 of 3/5/91 "...to prevent the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering. 
Q Italy 3: Decree of the Ministry of The Treasury of 19/12/91. 
R Luxembourg I: Act of 5/4/93 relating to the Financial Sector (Part II). 
S Luxembourg 2: Act of 7/7/89 amending the 19/2/73 Act on the sale of Medical Substances 
SS Luxranbowg3: Act of 18/12/93 amending insurance legislation 
T Netherlands I : Act of 16/12/93 on the Disclosure of Unusual Transactions. 
U Netherlands 2: Act of 16/12/93 on the Identification of Clients of Financial Institutions. 
V Netherlands 3 Ministerial Regulation pursuant to the 1993 Disclosure of Unusual Transactions Act W Netherlands 4 Ministerial Regulation pusuant to the 1993 Identification (Financial Services) Act 
X Netherlands 3: Dutch Penal Code 
Y Portugal 1: Decree Law No. 313 of 15/08/93. 
Z Portugal 2: Decree Law No. 15 of 22/1/93 
AA United Kingdom 1: Money Laundering Regulations (1993) 
BB United Kingdom 2: Criminal Justice Act (1988) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1993) 
CC United Kingdom 3: Drug Trafficking Offences Act (1986) 
DD United Kingdom 4: Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act (1990) 
EE United Kingdom 5: Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (1987) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1993) 
FF United Kingdom 6: Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (1989) 
ANNEX 1 Implementation of the Money Launderins Directive (91/308/EEC) Consolidated Table of Correspondence pageS 
Article of 
Directive 
3(7) 
3(8) 
4(1) 
4(2) 
5 
6 and 7 
8 
9 Brief Description 
of 
Content 
Exemption from identification 
requirements for credit and finan­
cial institutions which are them­
selves covered by the Directive. 
Optional exemption from ED. 
requiremen . in insurance operations 
when payment is made from accounts 
subjf*: to this Directive. 
Duty to keep a copy or the 
references of identification 
required for a minimum of 
five vears. 
duty to keep records and evidence 
of transactions for minimum of 
five years. 
Duty to use nhanced diligence in 
transactio. s most likely to be 
related to noney laundering. 
Duty of credit and financial 
institutions to co-operate with 
authorities and to report 
susoicious transactions. 
Duty of confidentiality of credit 
and financial institutions in 
respect to investigations being 
carried out. 
Exemption from liability for 
employees disclosing information 
on the basis of this directive in 
eood faith. Corresponding Article in National Legislation 
IRELAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS PORTUGAL UK 
Article 32(6) of N 
Article 32(8) of N 
Article 32(9) of N 
Article 32(9) of N 
-
Articles 57(1) and 
63(2) of N 
Article 58 of N 
Article 57(7) of N Article 2.5 of Q 
Option not used 
Article 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 
ofP 
Article 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 
OfP 
-
Article 3 of P 
Article 3(7) of P 
Article 3(5) ofP Article 39(5) of R 
Article 89-2(3) of SS 
Article 39(6)(1-) of R 
Article 39(6)(2-) of R 
Article 39(7) of R 
Article 40(1),(2),(3) 
ofR 
Article 40(4) of R 
Article 41(2),(6) of R Articles 2(4)(a),(b) 
ofU 
Article 4(1)(3) of W 
Article 4(2),(3) of U 
Articles 6 and 7 of U 
Article 6 and 7 of U 
-
Articles 9 and 10 
ofT 
Articles 1-3 of V 
Articles 19ofT 
Article 13 of T Article 4(3) of Y 
Article 4(l)(c) of Y 
Article 9(1) of Y 
Article 9(2) of Y 
Article 8 of Y 
Articles 10(1),(2),(3) 
and 11 of Y 
Article 10(4) of Y 
Article 13 of Y Article 10(1) of AA 
Article 8 of AA 
Article 12 of AA 
Article 12 of AA 
-
Article 26B of CC 
Article 43 A of EE 
Article 18 of FF 
Article 93D of BB 
Article 26C of CC 
Article 43B of EE 
Article 23A(5) and 
26B(4)(5),(6)ofCC 
N Ireland 1 : Irish Penal Code 
O Italy I: Italian Penal Code as amended by Law No. 55 of 19th March 1990. 
P Italy 2: Act No. 197 of 3/5/91 "...to prevent the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering. 
Q Italy 3: Decree of the Ministry of The Treasury of 19/12/91. 
R Luxembourg 1: Act of 5/4/93 relating to the Financial Sector (Part II). 
S Luxembourg 2: Act of 7/7/89 amending the 19/2/73 Act on the sale of Medical Substances 
SS Luxembourg 3: Act of 18/12/93 amending insurance legislation 
T Netherlands 1 : Act of 16/12/93 on the Disclosure of Unusual Transactions. 
U Netherlands 2: Act of 16/12/93 on the Identification of Clients of Financial Institutions. 
V Netherlands 3 Ministerial Regulation pursuant to the 1993 Disclosure of Unusual Transactions Act W Netherlands 4 Ministerial Regulation pusuant to the 1993 Identification (Financial Services) Act 
X Netherlands 3: Dutch Penal Code 
Y Portugal 1: Decree Law No. 313 of 15/08/93. 
Z Portugal 2: Decree Law No. 15 of 22/1/93 
AA United Kingdom 1: Money Laundering Regulations (1993) 
BB United Kingdom 2: Criminal Justice Act (1988) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1993) 
CC United Kingdom 3: Drug Trafficking Offences Act (1986) 
DD United Kingdom 4: Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act (1990) 
EE United Kingdom 5: Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (1987) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1993) 
FF United Kingdom 6: Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (1989) 
ANNEX 1 Implementation of the Money Launderins Directive (91/308/EEC) Consolidated Table of Correspondence page 6 
Article of 
Directive 
iO 
11(1) 
H(2) 
I 
12 
i 
I 
14 
14 Brief Description 
of 
Content 
Obligation of prudential authorities to 
report suspicious transactions. 
Duty of credit and financial instits. to 
set up internal control and 
communie tion procedures for the 
prevents n of money laundering. 
Duty of credit and financial 
institutions to provide training 
programmes for their employees. 
Extension of provisions of the 
Directive to professions and 
undertakings other than credit and 
financial institutions. 
Sanctioi s for infractions of the 
obliga ions provided for in 
Article 2 
Sanction» lor infractions of the 
obligations provided for in the 
Directive other than those in Article 2 Corresponding Article in National Legislation 
IRELAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS PORTUGAL UK 
Article 57(2) of N 
-
-
Article 32(10)(a) 
ofN 
Article 31 of N 
Articles 32(12), 57(5), 
58(4) and 63(10) of N -
Article 3(8) of P 
Article 3(8) of P , 
-
Articles 648bis, 648ter 
of O 
Articles 2(7),(8) 
and 5 of Q -
Article 40(5Xa) of R 
Article 40(5Xb) of R 
-
Articles 8-1 and 10 
of S 
Articles 59 and 63 
of Rand 
Article 8-1 of S Article 17 of T 
Article 3(e) of T 
Article 3(e) of T 
Article l(aX6) of T 
Sections 416,417, 
417bisofX 
Article 21 of T and 
Article 9 of U Article 12 of Y 
Article 14(1) of Y 
Article 14(2) of Y 
-
Article 23 of Z 
Articles 24 to 29 
of Y Articles 15 and 16 of 
AA 
Articles 5(1 Xa) and 14 
ofAA 
Article 5 of AA 
Article 26(BX1) of CC 
Article 43(AX1) of EE 
(obligation to report) 
Article 93 of BB 
Article 23(A),24 of CC 
Article 14 of DD 
Article 11 of FF 
Article 5 of AA 
Article 26(B),(C) 
of CC, Article 
43(A),(B)ofEE 
N Ireland 1 : Irish Penal Code 
O Italy 1 : Italian Penal Code as amended by Law No. 55 of 19th March 1990. 
P Italy 2: Act No. 197 of 3/5/91 "...to prevent the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering. 
Q Italy 3: Decree of the Ministry of The Treasury of 19/12/91. 
R Luxembourg 1 : Act of 5/4/93 relating to the Financial Sector (Part 11). 
S Luxembourg 2: Act of 7/7/89 amending the 19/2/73 Act on the sale of Medical Substances 
SS Luxembourg 3: Act of 18/12/93 amending insurance legislation 
T Netherlands 1 : Act of 16/12/93 oh the Disclosure of Unusual Transactions. 
U Netherlands 2: Act of16/12/93 on the Identification of Clients of Financial Institutions. 
V Netherlands 3 Ministerial Regulation pursuant to the 1993 Disclosure of Unusual Transactions Act W Netherlands 4 Ministerial Regulation pusuant to the 1993 Identification (Financial Services) Act 
X Netherlands 3: Dutch Penal Code 
Y Portugal 1 : Decree Law No. 313 ofl 5/08/93. 
Z Portugal 2: Decree Law No. 15 of 22/1/93 
AA United Kingdom 1 : Money Laundering Regulations (1993) 
BB United Kingdom 2: Criminal Justice Act (1988) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1993) 
CC United Kingdom 3 : Drug Trafficking Offences Act (1986) 
DD United Kingdom 4: Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act (1990) 
EE United Kingdom 5: Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act (1987) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1993) 
FF United Kingdom 6: Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (1989) 
ANNEX 2: Signature, ratification and implementation of the Vienna and Strasbourg Conventions 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM VIENNA CONVENTION 
Signature Ratification Implementation 
Arts 3 - 9 STRASBOURG CONVENTION 
Signature Ratification Implementation 
Yes 
Partially implemented 
No 
ANNEX 3: Types of proceeds from criminal activities covered by the criminal offence of money laundering 
in Member States*penal legislation 
Member State 
Belgium Terrorism Illicit Arms 
Trafficking Prostitution Contraband Others 
Crimes against 
Fopgrty 
Kidnapping, illegal 
removal of human 
organs Organised 
Crime All criminal 
activity or any 
serious crime 
S 
__§ Types of proceeds which are specifically covered 
Types of proceeds which are implicitly covered since proceeds from all criminal activities or from any serious crimes are included 
Types of oroceeds which are not covered 
ANNEX 4 Types of proceeds from criminal activities covered by the definition of "Money Laundering" in the specific Member States* 
legislation implementing the Directive Article 1 (indents 3 and 5) of the Money Laundering Directive. 
BELGIUM* 
DENMARK* 
GERMANY 
GREECE* 
SPAIN2 
FRANCE2 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
U. KINGDOM 
__! Types of proceeds which are specifically covered 
Types of proceeds which are generically covered since proceeds from all criminal activities or from any serious crime (or from organised crime) are included 
Types of proceeds which are not covered 
The crimina. definition of money laundering in Belgium is wider than that of the legislation implementing the Directive since the criminal offence of money laundering 
cc»crs proceeds from any criminal activity. 
The criminal definition of money laundering is narrower than that of the legislation implementing the Directive in the following member states: 
(a) Denmark, where it covers proceeds from drug-related offences, extorsion, smuggling and crimes against property. 
(b) Spain and France where it covers proceeds from drug-related offences. 
The criminal definition of money laundering in Greece covers proceeds from drug-related offences, extortion, kidnapping, illicit arms trafficking, and the illegal removal of 
human organs and tissues. 
In the UK, the specific legislation implementing the Directive as well as the criminal definition of money laundering covers proceeds from any serious crimes. However the 
offences of "failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering" is confined to proceeds from drug offences and terrorism. 
ANNEX 5: Comparison between the type of proceeds from criminal activities covered by the Member States' criminal offence of money 
laundering and those included in the scope of the specific national legislation implementing the Directive 
Types of criminal 
activities 
All criminal activities or 
any serious crime 
Organised crime 
Others 
Contraband 
Prostitution 
Illicit arm trafficking 
Terrorism 
Extorsion 
Crimes agiir st 
property 
Drug» £ 
Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal UK 
criminal offence scope scope of legislation implementing the Directive 
ANNEX 6 Professions and Undertakinss beyond the financial system covered by the Member States' Lesislation implementins 
the Directive. (Article 12 of the Money Launderins Directive) 
Member 
State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY1 
GREECE 
SPAIN2 
FRANCE3 
IRELAND4 
ITALY5 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
U. KINGDOM6 Gaming 
Industry 
Casino 
Operators Dealers in objects of high value 
Real 
Estate Precious 
Metals Jewellery Art and 
Antiques Legal professions carrying out 
financial activities. 
Lawyers Notaries Other 
legal prof. Others 
• All 
Traders All 
Professions All 
Persons 
£ 
n Types of professions and undertakings which are specifically covered 
Types of professions and undertakings which are implicitly covered. 
Types of professions and undertakings which are not covered 
as 3 
knows 4 
5 
6 The duty to identify all customers in transactions above 20,000 DM extends to all those practising a profession and to all traders, including Casinos and administrators of other persons' 
property. Casinos, bullion dealers and auctioneers are also obliged to set up internal control procedures against money laundering. 
The law also empowers the government to include within the scope of the law any person who practices a trade and who - in view of their habitual acceptance of cash or bearer instruments 
a means of payment, the high unit value of their goods or services, the location of their establishment or other relevant circumstances are - particularly susceptible to money laundering. 
All persons who, in exercising their profession advise upon, execute or control operations involving capital movements are obliged to notify the authorities of any transactions which he 
to be relat'd to money laundering. 
The Crimii al Code empowers the government to extend the scope of application of the directive to other professions and undertakings 
Payments i. cash and bearer securities over LIT 20M must be carried out through a financial intermediary. However this measure does not implement any provision of the directive 
The duty to report suspicious transactions extends to all persons. 
ANNEX 7 Penalties for infractions of the Member States' lesislation implementins the Money Launderins Directive (MLD): 
Article 14 of the MLD pagel 
Member 
State 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN Prohibition of 
Money 
Laundering 
Art 2 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for 15 days to 5 
years, and/or 
fines of up to 
20,000,000 
BFR (500,000 
ECU) 
Imprisonment 
for up to 6 
years and fines 
Imprisonment 
for up to 5 
years or a fine; 
(or for 6 
months up to 
10 years) 
Imprisonment 
for 1 to 10 
years 
Imprisonment 
for up to six 
years and fines 
from 1M Ptas 
(6,350 ECU) to 
lOOMPtas 
(635,000 ECU) Duty to 
identify 
customers 
Art. 3 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to 50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Unlimited 
fine 
Fine of up to 
200,000 DM 
(104,000 ECU) 
Fine of a min. 
of IM Ptas 
(6,350 ECU) 
and a max. of 
the highest of 
the following: 
25MPtas 
(160,000 ECU) 
or 1% of the 
institution's 
equity or the 
value of the 
tranaction plus 
fifty per cent Duty to report 
suspicious 
transactions 
Art. 6-7 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Unlimited 
fine 
Fine of 
between 15M 
and 250M Ptas 
(95,000 to 
1.6MECU) 
and revocation 
of the permit 
to operate. Duty to keep 
records of 
transactions 
and 
identification 
documents 
Art. 4 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to 50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Unlimited 
fine 
Fine of up to 
100,000 DM 
(52,000 ECU) 
Fine of a min. 
of IM Ptas 
(6,350 ECU) 
and a max. of 
the highest of 
the following: 
25MPtas 
(160,000 ECU) 
or 1% of the 
institution's 
equity or the 
value of the 
tranaction plus 
fifty per cent Duty of 
enhanced 
diligence 
Art. 5 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to 50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Fine of a min. 
of IM Ptas 
(6,350 ECU) 
and a max. of 
the highest of 
the following: 
25MPtas 
(160,000 ECU) 
or 1% of the 
institution's 
equity or the 
value of the 
tranaction plus 
fifty per cent Duty of 
confidentiality 
(Tipping-<rff 
clause) 
Art. 8 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to 50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Unlimited 
fine 
Fine of up to 
100,000 DM 
(52,000 ECU) 
Fine of 
between 15M 
and 250M Ptas 
(95,000 to 
1.6MECU) 
and revocation 
of the permit 
to operate. Duty to set up 
internal control 
and 
communication 
procedures 
Art. 11-1 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to 50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Unlimited 
fine 
Fines of up to 
50,000 DM 
(26,000 ECU) 
and other 
prudential 
sanctions 
Fine of a min. 
of 1M Ptas 
(6,350 ECU) 
and a max. of 
the highest of 
the following: 
25MPtas 
(160,000 ECU) 
or 1% of the 
institution's 
equity or the 
value of the 
tranaction plus 
fifty per cent Duty to 
provide 
training 
programmes 
for employees. 
Art 11-2 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to 50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Unlimited 
fine 
Fines of up to 
50,000 DM 
(26,000 ECU) 
and other 
prudential 
sanctions 
Fine of a min. 
of 1M Ptas 
(6,350 ECU) 
and a max. of 
the highest of 
the following: 
25MPtas 
(160,000 ECU) 
or 1% of the 
institution's 
equity or the 
value of the 
tranaction plus 
fifty per cent Duty of 
prudential 
authorities to 
report 
suspicious 
transactions. 
Art. 10 MLD 
Fine of 10,000 
to 50M BFR 
(250 to 2.5M 
ECU) 
Disciplinary 
measures u* f 
•All amounts expn ;sed in ECU are approximative 
ANNEX 7 Penalties for infractions of the Member States' lesislation implementins the Money Launderins Directive (MLD): 
Article 14 of the MLD page 2 
Member 
State 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG Prohibition of 
Money 
Laundering 
Art. 2 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for up to 10 
years and fines 
of up to 1MFF 
(150,000 ECU) 
Imprisonment 
for up to 
fourteen years, 
or a fine or 
both 
Imprisonment 
for 4 to 12 
years and fines 
of between LIT 
2M and 30M 
(1,000 to 
16,000 ECU) 
Imprisonment 
for between 
one and twenty 
years and fines 
of between 
LUF 5,000 and 
50,000,000 
(125 to 
1,250,000 
ECU) Duty to 
identify 
customers 
Art. 3 MLD 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation. 
Imprisonment 
for up to five 
years, or a fine 
or both 
Fine of 
between LIT 
5M and 25M 
(2,700 to 
13,500 ECU) 
Fine of LUF 
5,000 to 
500,000 
(125 to 12,500 
ECU) 
suspension of 
directors, 
shareholders' 
voting rights or 
the institution's 
activities. Duty to report 
suspicious 
transactions 
Art. 6-7 MLD 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation. 
Imprisonment 
for up to five 
years, or a fine 
or both 
Fine of up to 
half the 
amount of the 
transaction. 
Fine of LUF 
5,000 to 
500,000 
(125 to 12,500 
ECU) 
suspension of 
directors, 
shareholders' 
voting rights or 
the institution's 
activities. Duty to keep 
records of 
transactions 
and 
identification 
documents 
Art. 4 MLD 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation. 
Imprisonment 
for up to five 
years, or a fine 
or both 
Fine of 
between LIT 
5Mand25M 
(2,700 to 
13,500 ECU) 
Fine of LUF 
5,000 to 
500,000 
(125 to 12,500 
ECU) 
suspension of 
directors, 
shareholders' 
voting rights or 
the institution's 
activities. Duty of 
enhanced 
diligence 
Art. 5 MLD 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation. 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation 
Fine of LUF 
5,000 to 
500,000 
(125 to 12,500 
ECU) 
suspension of 
directors, 
shareholders' 
voting rights or 
the institution's 
activities. Duty of 
confidentiality 
(tipping-off 
clause) 
Art. 8 MLD 
Fine of 15,000 
to 150,000 FF 
( 2,250 to 
22,500 ECU) 
Imprisonment 
for up to five 
years, or a fine 
or both 
Imprisonment 
for 6 to 12 
months or a 
fine of LIT 
lOMtolOOM 
(5,400 to 
54,000 ECU) 
Fine of LUF 
5,000 to 
500,000 
(125 to 12,500 
ECU) 
suspension of 
directors, 
shareholders' 
voting rights or 
the institution's 
activities. Duty to set up 
internal control 
and 
communication 
procedures 
Art. 11-1 MLD 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation. 
Imprisonment 
for 6 to 12 
months and a 
fine of LIT 
10M to 50M 
(5,400 to 
27,000 ECU) 
and prudential 
sanctions 
Fine of LUF 
5,000 to 
500,000 
(125 to 12,500 
ECU) 
suspension of 
directors, 
shareholders' 
voting rights or 
the institution's 
activities. Duty to 
provide 
training 
programmes 
for employees. 
Art. 11-2 MLD 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation. 
Sanctions 
provided for in 
the relevant 
prudential 
legislation 
Fine of LUF 
5,000 to 
500,000 
(125 to 12,500 
ECU) 
suspension of 
directors, 
shareholders* 
voting rights or 
the institution's 
activities Duty of 
prudential 
authorities to 
report 
suspicious 
transactions. 
Art. 10 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for up to five 
years, or a fine 
or both 
* All amounts expressed in ECU are approximative 
ANNEX 7 Penalties for infractions of the Member States' lesislation implementins the Money Launderins Directive (MLD): 
Article 14 of the MLD page 3 
Member 
State 
NÎETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
U. KINGDOM Prohibition of 
Money 
Laundering 
Art. 2 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for up to four 
years or a fine 
Imprisonment 
for a term of 1 
to 12 years 
Imprisonment 
for a term of 
up to 14 years 
and/or an 
unlimited fine Duty to 
identify 
customers 
Art. 3 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and/or a 
fine. Also 
confiscation of 
assets, temp­
orary shut­
down or 
termination of 
activities and 
seizing of 
profits from 
illegal 
activities. 
Fine of 
between 
50,000 and 
150MPTE 
(250 to 
750,000 ECU) 
and 
disqualification 
from 
exercising 
certain duties 
for up to ten 
years 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and/or an 
unlimited fine Duty to report 
suspicious 
transactions 
Art. 6-7 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and or a 
fine. Also 
confiscation of 
assets, temp­
orary shut­
down or 
termination of 
activities and 
seizing of 
profits from 
illegal 
activities. 
Fine of 
between 1M 
PTE and 200M 
PTE (5,040 to 
1M ECU) and 
disqualification 
from 
exercising 
certain duties 
for up to ten 
years 
Imprisonment 
for up to five 
years and/or an 
unlimited fine Duty to keep 
records of 
transactions 
and 
identification 
documents 
Art. 4 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and or a 
fine. Also 
confiscation of 
assets, temp­
orary shut­
down or 
termination of 
activities and 
seizing of 
profits from 
illegal 
activities. 
Fine of 
between 
50,000 and 
150MPTE 
(250 to 
750,000 ECU) 
and 
disqualification 
from 
exercising 
certain duties 
for up to ten 
years 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and/or an 
unlimited fine Duty of 
enhanced 
diligence 
Art 5 MLD 
Fine of 
between 
50,000 and 
150MPTE 
(250 to 
750,000 ECU) 
and 
disqualification 
from 
exercising 
certain duties 
for up to ten 
years Duty of 
confidentiality 
(Tipping-off 
clause) 
Art. 8 MLD 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and or a 
fine. Also 
confiscation of 
assets, temp­
orary shut­
down or 
termination of 
activities and 
seizing of 
profits from 
illegal 
activities. 
Fine of 
between 1M 
PTE and 200M 
PTE (5,040 to 
IM ECU) and 
disqualification 
from 
exercising 
certain duties 
for up to ten 
years 
Imprisonment 
for up to five 
years and/or an 
unlimited fine Duty to set up 
internal control 
and 
communication 
procedures 
Art. 11-1 MLD 
i 
Fine of 
between 1M 
PTE and 200M 
PTE (5,040 to 
IM ECU) and 
disqualification 
from 
exercising 
certain duties 
for up to ten 
years 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and/or an 
unlimited fine Duty to 
provide 
training 
programmes 
for employees. 
Art. 11-2 MLD 
Fine of 
between 1M 
PTE and 200M 
PTE (5,040 to 
IM ECU) and 
disqualification 
from 
exercising 
certain duties 
for up to ten 
years 
Imprisonment 
for up to two 
years and/or an 
unlimited fine Duty of 
prudential 
authorities to 
report 
suspicious 
transactions. 
Art. 10 MLD 
-
* All amounts e pressed in ECU are approximative 
i< 
BSN 1024-4492 
KOM(95) 54 lopullinen 
ASIAKIRJAT 
FI 09 10 
Luettelonumero : CB-CO-95-065-FI-C 
ISBN 92-77-86124-X 
Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto 
L-2985 Luxembourg