Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Council Decision of 17 October 2000 concerning arrangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information (2000/642/JHA)
Date: 2007-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, data protection, exchange of information, fight against crime, financial cooperation, money laundering, terrorism

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.12.2007 
COM(2007) 827 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

On the implementation of the Council Decision of 17 October 2000 concerning 
arrangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units of the Member States 
in respect of exchanging information (2000/642/JHA) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  aim  of  this  report  is  to  assess  whether  Member  States  have  established  a  cooperative 
framework to support the work of their Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) as set out in the 
Council  Decision  2000/642/JHA  (hereafter  "the  Decision").  FIUs  are  central  to  efforts  to 
combat anti-money laundering and terrorist financing, and it is essential to promote their close 
cooperation. 

Based  on  a  Finnish  initiative,  the  Decision  is  intended  to  improve  cooperation  among  EU 
FIUs for the purpose of anti-money laundering1. The Decision seeks to address the difficulties 
in  communication  and  exchange  of  information  among  FIUs  resulting  from  their  different 
legal  status  (administrative,  judicial  or  law  enforcement  based)  by  providing  for  direct 
communication between them. The Decision reflects the standards and principles established 
by  the  Egmont  Group2  as  well  as  the  recommendations  of  the  Financial  Action  Task  Force 
("FATF")3. 

At the European level, the importance of FIU cooperation has also been acknowledged by the 
EU Counter Terrorist Financing Strategy of December 20044. Furthermore, this report is also 
timely as the Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive5 has reconfirmed many aspects of FIU 
functions and cooperation set out in the Decision and is to be transposed by Member States 
into national law by 15 December 2007. Complementarily to the Directive, the Cash Controls 
Regulation6 applies from 15 June 2007 and according to its provisions competent authorities 
of Member States shall make available to their national FIU the information obtained under 
the  Regulation.  Finally,  the  2005  Council  of  Europe  Convention7  n°198  matches  the 
provisions of the Decision. 

Reinforced  European  cooperation  has  become  increasingly  necessary,  as  the  information 
processed by the FIUs has grown in recent years. Many Member States report on an increase 
in cases of European and international cooperation, e.g. the German FIU in its 2005 Annual 
Activity  Report8:  "The  FIU  corresponded  with  foreign  FIUs  in  657  cases  in  2005.  This 
represents  an  increase  of  8.4%  over  the  preceding  year.  The  rate  of  increase  from  2003  to 
2004 was 25%." 

2. 

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT AND METHOD OF EVALUATION 

According to Art. 34(2)(c) of the Treaty of the European Union ("TEU"), Council Decisions 
in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters do not approximate laws of 
Member  States,  but  have  other  purposes  consistent  with  the  objectives  of  Title  VI  of  TEU. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

6 
7 

8 

The  scope  of  the  Decision  is  limited  to  cooperation  for  anti-  money  laundering  purposes,  but  in  practice  FIU 
cooperation  also  covers  counter  terrorist  financing  (CFT).  12  Member  States  reported  that  their  FIUs  have  a 
mandate in CFT. 
The  Egmont  Group  is  the  coordinating  body  for  the  international  group  of  FIUs  formed  in  1995  to  promote  and 
enhance  international  cooperation  in  anti-money  laundering  (AML)  and  more  lately  in  CFT.  All  EU  FIUs  are 
members of the Egmont Group.  
The  FATF  is  the  key  international  standard  setter  in the  AML  and  CFT  area  that  set  key  requirements  for  FIUs 
through Recommendations 26, 30, 32 and 40. 
«The fight against terrorist financing» 16089/04 of 14th December 2004 (Council Document) 
Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and 
terrorist financing  
Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community 
Council  of  Europe  Convention  (n°198)  on  Laundering,  Search,  Seizure  and  Confiscation  of  the  Proceeds  from 
Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism  
www.bka.de/profil/zentralstellen/geldwaesche/pdf/fiu_germany_annual_report_2005.pdf 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Treaty  makes  clear  that  such  Council  Decisions  are  legally  binding  and  it  may  be 
necessary for Member States to amend their national law to bring it into conformity with the 
Decision. 

Member States have to be in compliance with the Decision by 17 October 2003 as stated by 
its Art. 9(2). This provision requires that "The Member States shall ensure that they are able 
to cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions of this Decision ...". 

This report, although not required by the Decision, offers a first factual evaluation of whether 
Member States have a legislative and operational framework in place to enable their FIUs to 
cooperate as set out in the Council Decision. 

In a letter sent on 24 May 2006 and a reminder letter dated 23 October 2006, the then 25 EU 
Member  States  were  requested  by  the  Commission  to  communicate  their  implementing 
measures. Bulgaria and Romania were also requested to do so in a letter of 24 January 2007. 
By June 2007, 26 Member States had responded to this request, whereas Ireland has sent an 
interim reply to date. The report has been drawn up on the basis of these replies. Some of the 
replies were partial, not explaining details of implementation. Some Member States have not 
sent  the  Commission  all  relevant  texts  of  their  implementing  provisions.  The  factual 
assessment  and  subsequent  conclusions  are  therefore  sometimes  based  on  incomplete 
information. 

The report focuses on legal aspects of FIU cooperation, but also addresses operational issues 
as much as possible based on the received replies. This twofold analysis is essential given that 
FIU  cooperation  is  determined  by  operational  aspects  which  go  further  than  legislative 
provisions.  This  might  also  mean  that  even  if  a  Member  State's  legislation  is  in  line  with 
requirements of the Council Decision, real operational problems might remain undiscovered. 
This  duality  of  legislative  and  operational  implementation  has  rendered  the  assessment 
complex  and  difficult,  especially  as  most  replies  from  Member  States  focused  on  legal 
aspects. Moreover, the wording of the Decision leaves many aspects open to interpretation. 

OVERVIEW OF MEMBER STATES’ REPLIES 

3. 
This  part  of  the  report  analyses  the  situation  concerning  the  specific  provisions9  of  the 
Decision, covering Articles 1-7 and 9 on a thematic basis. The following key issues have been 
identified: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Definition of the FIU 

Basis for the exchange of information 

Modalities for the exchange of information 

Data protection 

Already at this stage, it is important to take note of the diversity among EU FIUs: 12 FIUs are 
of administrative nature (FR, SI, BE, CZ, IT, ES, LV, PL, MT, RO, EL, BG), while 11 have a 
law enforcement basis (DE, HU, UK, SE, SK, EE, AT, FI, LT, PT, IE) and one is a judicial 
body (LU). 3 FIUs can be considered as hybrid (DK, CY, NL). 

DEFINITION OF THE FIU 

3.1. 
Art.  2(1)  mainly  takes  over  the  Egmont  Group  definition  of  FIUs10  and  Member  States  are 
requested  to  ensure  that  their  FIU  is  "A  central,  national  unit  which,  …,  is  responsible  for 

9 

Concerning Art. 8, communications were made by 5 Member States. UK reported of the implementation of Art. 10. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
receiving  (and  to  the  extent  permitted,  requesting),  analysing  and  disseminating  to  the 
competent  authorities  disclosures  of  financial  information…".  This  definition  is  also  in  line 
with Art. 21 of the Third Anti- Money Laundering Directive. Most Member States, in total 18, 
communicated the legal text setting up their FIU. 

(a) 

A central, national unit; responsible for dissemination of information - Art. 2 

This is an important aspect from an FIU cooperation point of view. The FIU shall be a distinct 
entity either autonomously or within an organisation so that EU FIUs can directly cooperate 
and  exchange  information  with  each  other.  Member  States  mainly  comply  with  this 
requirement,  and  some  of  them  (MT,  RO,  LV)  stated  that  they  entrusted  their  FIU  with 
distinct legal personality. It is noted that EL legislation refers to a "National Authority for the 
Combating  of  Money-Laundering"  and  to  the  fact  that  "The  place  of  its  meetings  shall  be 
specified  by  a  decision  of  the  Minister".  Furthermore,  there  is  some  lack  of  clarity  in  cases 
(e.g.  CZ,  HU)  when  legislation  provides  the  relevant  functions  and  responsibilities  to  the 
whole  organisation  of  which  the  FIU  is  part,  rather  than  to  the  specific  unit.  No  clear 
information was provided on this aspect from UK, DK, EE, FI, BG, IE, IT, AT, ES, LU, SK. 

For the purposes of FIU cooperation, it is important to entrust the FIU with clear powers for 
the "dissemination" of information11. This dissemination function touches rather the national 
context, whereby the FIU disseminates information to competent authorities, however, FIUs 
have to be able to disseminate information internationally as well. Some legislation (EL, NL, 
SE, CZ, HU, CY, PL, RO) provides for cooperation with foreign counterparts, although not 
mentioning specifically "dissemination" when listing key FIU functions. Some Member States 
- such as UK, DK, SK, EE, AT, ES, FI, BG, IE, LU, IT - have not provided clear information 
on this aspect.  

(b) 

Relevant information gathered at national level - Art. 1(1) and Art. 2(1) 

The  Decision  remains  relatively  vague  about  the  scope  of  information  that  has  to  be 
accessible to FIUs and only provides at Art.4(2) the so-called multidisciplinary requirement, 
that  all  relevant  administrative,  law  enforcement  and  financial  information  shall  be 
exchanged. Therefore, the following analysis aims at having a better understanding – solely 
on the basis of replies received – on what "relevant information" is gathered within the FIU, 
according  to  Art.1(1),  but  without  directly  assessing  the  level  of  Member  States' 
implementation.  An  important  element  in  this  respect  is  the  obligations  following  from  the 
Anti-Money Laundering Directives. Also, to ensure efficient cooperation it would be essential 
for an EU FIU to have an understanding of what information is gathered in a partner EU FIU.  

Provisions  in  Member  States  are  highly  diverse  on  whether  the  FIU  has  access  to  certain 
databases or can request further information from different authorities. Some Member States 
reported  requirements  that  make  police  information  accessible,  in  other  cases  also  tax  or 
customs  authorities  (SE,  DE),  or  even  various  other  bodies  (BE,  EL,  LT,  LV,  PL,  ES,  MT, 
RO, CZ, FI, IT) provide information. In some cases, this broader coverage also brings a lack 
of  clarity  with  regard  to  the  exact  bodies  that  should  provide  information,  such  as  "state 
authorities"  (LV),  "appropriate  executive  bodies"  (ES).  No  concrete  information  has  been 
provided on this aspect from HU, UK, LU, DK, SK, EE, AT, FR, NL, PT, IE, BG. 

10 
11 

Definition adopted at the Egmont Group Plenary meeting in 1996 and amended in June 2004. 
The present report only focuses on the core function of dissemination in the context of FIU cooperation and does 
not  analyses  the  aspect  of  dissemination  to  law  enforcement  agencies  and  other  competent  authorities  such  as 
supervisory bodies. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
(c) 

Relevant  information  –  obligation  for  law  enforcement  authorities  to  provide 
information to FIU - linked to Art. 4(2) 

Some  Member  States  informed  the  Commission  about  legal  requirements  that  law 
enforcement authorities are to provide information to the FIU. DE, BE, MT, LT, PL, SE, CZ, 
IT, CY have reported specifically such an obligation. 

(d) 

Relevant  information  -  possibility  for  FIU  to  require  further  financial 
information from domestic reporting bodies - linked to Art. 4(2) 

As  exchange  of  information  among  FIU  concerns  sensitive  financial  information,  it  is 
important to know whether the FIU has the right to request additional information to reports 
on suspicious  transactions from financial  institutions  or  other reporting bodies. Many of the 
Member States (HU, FR, SI, SE, BE, EL, FI, EE, LT, NL, MT, RO, PL, LV, IT, DE) have 
reported about legislation in place that enables the FIU to require further data from financial 
institutions  and  other  reporting  entities.  No  clear  information  was  provided  on  this  aspect 
from UK, LU, DK, SK, AT, PT, IE, BG, ES, CZ, CY.  

(e) 

Notification of the General Secretariat of the Council [Art. 2(3)] 

Member States are under the obligation to notify to the General Secretariat of the Council in 
writing of which unit is their FIU within the meaning of this article. Only 4 Member States 
(DE, LU, IT, MT) declared in their response that they have done or are doing so.  

3.2. 

BASIS FOR THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION  

Exchange of information serves the purpose of allowing FIUs to properly analyse reports on 
suspicious  transactions  (STRs).12  17  Member  States  communicated  legal  provisions  which 
confirm the right and need for cooperation with foreign FIUs. Only ES made a difference in 
legislation between EU level and international FIU cooperation and exchange of information. 
It was found that 18 Member States included specific provision in their laws on information 
exchange.  3  Member  States'  legislation  seems  to  provide  for  legal  provisions  for  FIU 
cooperation  (LT,  NL,  PT),  but  not  more  specifically  for  exchange  of  information.  EL 
legislation  would  appear  to  contain  a  limitation  by  covering  international  cooperation  in 
general  and  only  the  case  when  FIU  receives  information.  No  concrete  information  was 
received on this aspect from DK, BG, IE, AT. 

(a) 

"FIUs  shall  be  able  to  exchange  spontaneously  or  on  request,  any  available 
information that may be relevant…" - Art.1(2) 

4  Member  States  (HU,  SI,  LV,  MT)  reported  legal  provisions,  whereas  further  4  Member 
States  (FR,  SE,  CZ,  CY)  declared  specifically  that  they  exchange  information  both 
spontaneously or on request, but without giving legal provisions.  

(b) 

Police FIU may supply information - Art.1(3) 

This provides for less demanding requirements to law enforcement FIUs. There has not been 
any  specific  information  about  this  article  from  Member  States  which  would  indicate  that 
different legal provisions apply to law enforcement as opposed to other types of FIUs. 

12 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  information  exchanged  among  FIUs  always  pertain  to  suspicion,  thus 
there is no overlapping with other forms or channels of European cooperation (e.g. Europol). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(c) 

Performance  of  FIU  functions  shall  not  be  affected  by  their  internal  status  - 
Art. 3 

It is left to Member States to choose the most suitable status for their FIU, but FIUs must be 
able  to  perform  their  duties  properly.  23  Member  States  provided  statements  or  legal 
provisions  that  cooperation  is  undertaken  with  foreign  FIUs  regardless  of  their  status. 
However, there is lack of clarity in some cases when cooperation is based on relevant Police 
Acts (e.g. AT, SK), and it is hard to judge whether the provisions cover all types of FIUs as 
this  is  not  clearly  stated  in  the  text.  NL  is  the  only  Member  State  expressly  referring  in 
legislation  to  "foreign  government  designated  police  and  non-police  authorities  which  have 
similar duties". No concrete information was received from UK, DK, BG, IE on this aspect. 

3.3.  MODALITIES FOR THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION 

Several  provisions  (Art.  4,  6,  7,  9(1))  set  out  modalities  for  the  exchange  of  information 
touching upon the different stages of the information exchange cycle. As a general statement, 
11  Member  States  (FR,  UK,  SI,  CY,  EE,  AT,  EL,  LV,  PL,  PT,  RO)  emphasised  that  they 
apply  the  Egmont  Group  principles13  in  exchanging  information  and  thus  comply  with  the 
relevant  requirements  of  the  Decision.  2  Member  States  mentioned  specifically  that  they 
provide a brief statement of the relevant facts (CZ, NL) (Art. 4(1)). 

(a)  When replying to a request - Art.4(2) 

The  FIU,  when  replying  to  a  request,  shall  provide  all  relevant  information,  including 
available  financial  information  and  requested  law  enforcement  data.  This  is  one  of  the 
Decision's key provisions.  

Statements  and  legal  provisions  were  provided  by  9  Member  States  (HU,  FR,  SE,  ES,  NL, 
BE, CZ, EE, UK) identifying to a certain extent the scope of exchanged information, but not 
always stating precisely whether financial or law enforcement data is exchanged. While some 
States  (HU,  FR,  BE,  CZ,  EE)  emphasised  that  they  transmit  financial,  bank  information  as 
well,  it  can  be  supposed  that  some  others  have  difficulties  in  doing  so.  There  seems  to  be 
considerable differences in the information that can be transmitted by FIUs. However, as the 
Decision does not define "all relevant information", it is difficult to assess Member States' real 
compliance with this crucial aspect. 

The principle of reciprocity is not a precondition for information exchange according to the 
Decision,  but  is  mentioned  in  many  Member  States'  relevant  laws  or  practice  (FR,  SI,  BE, 
RO, CZ, PL). On the other hand, EE stated that it has abandoned this principle.  

(b) 

Cases of refusal - Art. 4(3) 

Art.4(3)  defines,  in  quite  wide  terms,  in  which  cases  the  FIU  may  refuse  to  provide 
information to foreign counterparts. 5 Member States (HU, FR, ES, MT, NL) reported about 
legal  provisions  of  various  types.  Among  these,  most  often  reference  has  been  made  to 
fundamental  principles  such  as  sovereignty,  national  security  and  to  the  possibility  of 
impairment  of  criminal  investigations.  No  concrete  communication  has  been  given  on  this 
aspect by 22 Member States. 

(c) 

Spontaneous exchange of information - Art. 6 

In general no distinction  seems  to be made between the  information that can  be  transmitted 
"as a reply to a request" or spontaneously. 

13 

Principles for Information Exchange between FIUs for ML and TF cases, The Hague, 13 June 2001 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(d) 

Protected channels - Art.7 

Given the need for secure information exchange, the Decision obliges Member States to have 
protected channels of communication. The following key channels were mentioned: Egmont 
Secure Web (a secure encrypted capability to share information over the Internet), FIU.NET 
(computer  based  information  exchange  system  of  EU  FIUs),  Europol  and  Interpol  for  law 
enforcement FIUs. 

11  Member  States  (DE,  FR,  BE,  CZ,  SK,  ES,  EL,  FI,  LV,  NL,  PT)  confirmed  their 
participation in the FIU.NET project, while SE and CY wish to be a member and AT is not 
participating. Concerning the Egmont Secure Web, 15 Member States (DE, UK, FR, SE, BE, 
CZ, SK, CY, AT, ES, EL, FI, LV, NL, PT) confirmed that they use this channel. 

(e)  Memoranda of Understanding ("MoU") - Art.7 

In certain cases, MoUs are essential in governing information exchange among FIUs. These 
agreements can be a way of implementing the provisions of the Decision without legislative 
action. 

16 Member States (DE, FR, SE, BE, EE, ES, EL, FI, LV, NL, PT, RO, PL, IT, MT, CZ) have 
declared that they have MoUs with other countries. Some stated (DE, FR, SE, CZ, IT, MT, 
EE) that they are not required to use such agreements. PL legislation would appear to contain 
a limitation by providing for foreign information exchange "on a reciprocal basis in the form 
laid down in bilateral agreements." No concrete information was provided from HU, UK, SI, 
LU, DK, SK, CY, AT, LT, BG, IE on this aspect. 

3.4. 

CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA PROTECTION 

Many Member States confirmed paying close attention to confidentiality and complying with 
strict national data protection legislation which means that general data protection legislation 
is  applicable  to  FIUs.  Some  Member  States  also  referred  to  the  EU  Data  Protection 
Directive14.  

(a) 

Use of information obtained - Art.5(1-3)  

Some  Member  States  (LU,  MT,  PL,  CZ,  HU,  FR,  ES,  SI,  FI,  RO,  LV)  reported  a  general 
provision  that  domestically  and/or  internationally  received  information  should  be  used  for 
AML (and CFT) purposes. Few Member States (DE, SE, NL) declared that information can 
only  be  used  for  commonly  agreed  purposes,  respecting  restrictions  of  counterparts.  No 
concrete information was provided from 13 Member States on these aspects. 

To  ascertain  that  the  information  once  obtained  can  really  serve  criminal  investigations  or 
prosecutions  in  money  laundering,  Art.5(3)  requires  that  in  these  cases,  the  transmitting 
Member State may not refuse its consent, unless it does so on the basis of restrictions under 
its national law or in cases as referred to in Art.4(3). Only a few Member States (e.g. NL, DK) 
addressed this aspect, referring to the need for appraisal from certain authorities to be able to 
transmit information. 

(b) 

No access to any other authorities, agencies or departments - Art. 5(4) 

Statements or legal provisions were reported by LT, RO, CZ, BE, DE, NL, AT, LV, CY, EL 
that FIU data is not accessible to third parties. There seems to be a lack of clarity with regard 
to the term "any authorities, agencies or departments" as used in the Decision. It is somewhat 
unclear how this provision accords with some Member States' (such as SE, FI) statements that 

14 

Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal 
data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
their FIU is authorised to forward information to other law enforcement authorities or that the 
data kept by the FIU are (partially) available to the police. Furthermore, in some cases (HU, 
UK) data protection rules seem to be applicable to the organisation of which the FIU is part, 
but no specific provisions are given to the FIU itself. No concrete information was received 
from LU, EE, IT, SK, PL, PT, BG, IE on this aspect. Under these circumstances, it is difficult 
to assess whether Art. 5(4) has been respected.  

(c) 

Council  of  Europe  Convention,  same  level  of  confidentiality  and  data 
protection - Art. 5(5) 

No  detailed  analysis  was  given  by  Member  States  of  provisions  to  comply  with  the  1981 
Council of Europe Convention15 and the 1987 Recommendation16 No R(87) 15 as required by 
Art. 5(5). 

Art. 5(5) also states that "The information submitted will be protected … by at least the same 
rules of confidentiality and protection of personal data as those that apply under the national 
legislation applicable to the requesting FIU." This provides for recognition of the other state's 
legislation.  

Some  Member  States  reported  legal  requirements  that  a  precondition  for  transmitting 
information to a foreign FIU is that this counterpart has to have the same level of secrecy (BE, 
MT,  RO)  or  professional  secrecy  (FR,  ES)  as  provided  by  the  national  legislation  of  the 
transmitting State or that counterparts need to have a regulated system of data protection (SI). 
These provisions might be valid for international cooperation, but do not seem to fully comply 
with EU level requirements as set out in Art. 5(5). Furthermore, it has to be considered that 
"professional secrecy" is only one aspect of "confidentiality". 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

EU FIU cooperation must be built on a legislative and regulatory environment that promotes 
mutual  confidence  building.  This  report  provides  a  first  insight  into  Member  States' 
implementation of the Decision on FIU cooperation. The report confirms the wide diversity in 
the  way  EU  FIUs  are  organised,  as  well  as  the  type  of  information  accessible  to  them  and 
whether it can be exchanged. 

Given  the  available  information,  the  report  concentrated  mainly  on  legislation  and  less  on 
operational aspects of cooperation. However, these latter aspects are crucial. Legislation can 
be compliant with provisions of the Decision, but practice might show a different picture. In 
general,  Member  States  have  not  made  a  distinction  in  legislation  between  EU  level  and 
international cooperation. 

Member  States  can  be  largely  considered  as  legally  compliant  with  most  of  the  key 
requirements  of  the  Decision:  legal  provisions  set  out  FIU  functions  and  allowing  for 
cooperation with FIUs of a different legal status. However, there seems to be lack of clarity 
about the applicable legal framework on FIU related data protection issues. More clarity will 
be brought into the data protection context when the proposed Framework Decision on Data 
Protection  for  Law  Enforcement  Purposes  will  be  formally  adopted17  and  implementation 
work will be undertaken by Member States. In that context, the necessity for complementary 
measures  will  be  assessed.  There  may  also  be  a  need  to  improve  common  knowledge  on 

15 

16 
17 

Convention No 108 of the Council of Europe for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing 
of Personal Data (of 1981) 
Recommendation No R(87)15 of 15 September 1987 Regulating the Use of Personal Data in the Police Sector 
Political agreement on the proposal was reached at the JAI Council of 8 and 9th November 2007. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
relevant  data  protection  provisions  applicable  to  FIUs  and  consideration  might  be  given  to 
discussing the development of guidelines. 

More questions arise in relation to the practice linked to implementation of Art. 4(2) of the 
Decision where many administrative FIUs cannot exchange police information or can provide 
such information only after a long delay. Some  law  enforcement  FIUs  might  not  be  able  to 
provide  certain  crucial  information  from  their  databases  to  administrative  entities.  Many 
difficulties arise because there is no common understanding of what information is accessible 
to FIUs and what "relevant information" is to be exchanged. This lack of clarity can lead to 
miscommunication and misunderstandings. 

On this basis, it is suggested that EU FIUs, as a first step, consider identifying good practice 
on  the  information  nationally  accessible  for  FIUs.  Moreover,  it  has  to  be  emphasised  that 
access  to  additional  financial  information  and  the  ability  to  exchange  such  information  is 
essential for efficient FIU activity.  

As modalities for information exchange seem to be mainly implemented at a more operational 
level, it is difficult to judge the exact level of implementation on the basis of replies received. 
It could be considered whether a model Memorandum of Understanding could be promoted 
among EU FIUs to facilitate information exchange at EU level and to encourage multilateral 
cooperation. 

It is essential  to  strengthen operational cooperation  among  EU  FIUs.  This  could  be  assisted 
through the work undertaken in the EU FIU Platform18 and through a well defined FIU.NET 
project providing for operationally efficient cooperation. The work undertaken in the EU FIU 
Platform can be considered as a valuable starting point. 

There  may  be  a  need  to  consider  whether  to  bring  provisions  of  the  Decision  up-to-date 
covering  the  area  of  counter-terrorism  financing  and  providing  for  the  same  level  of 
requirements for all FIUs, irrespectively of their legal status. 

18 

Informal Platform of EU FIUs created by the Commission in 2006 to discuss implementation aspects of the Third 
Anti-Money Laundering Directive relevant to FIUs. 

EN 

9 

   EN