Opinion of the European Central Bank of 25 May 2020 on cash limitations concerning postal payments and anti-money laundering measures (CON/2020/17)
Date: 2020-05-25
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: legal basis, money

EN 

ECB-PUBLIC 

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 

of 25 May 2020 

on cash limitations concerning postal payments and anti-money 

laundering measures  

(CON/2020/17) 

Introduction and legal basis 

On  8  April  2020  the  European  Central  Bank  (ECB)  received  a  request  from  the  Nationale  Bank  van 

België/Banque Nationale de Belgique (‘NBB’) on a draft law implementing Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council1 (‘AMLD V’) under Belgian law (hereinafter the ‘draft law’). 

The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the 

Functioning of the European Union and the second  and third indents of Article 2(1) of Council Decision 
98/415/EC2, as the draft law relates to means of payment, the NBB and the ECB’s tasks concerning the 

prudential supervision of credit institutions conferred on them pursuant to Article 127(6) of the Treaty. In 

accordance  with  the  first  sentence  of  Article  17.5  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  European  Central 

Bank, the Governing Council has  adopted this opinion. 

1. 

Purpose of the draft law 

1.1  The draft law mainly amends the Belgian Law of 18 September 2017 on the prevention of money 
laundering  and  terrorist  financing  and  on  the  restriction  of  the  use  of  cash  (‘Law  on  AML/CFT’)3. 

The main purpose of the draft law is to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. 

1.2  The draft law modifies the cash limitation system applicable to postal payments. According to the 

explanatory  memorandum  of  the  draft  law,  postal  payments  serve  the  same  purpose  as  cash 

payments.  Moreover,  it  appears  that  dishonest  natural  or  legal  persons  have  been  able  to 

circumvent  limitations  that  apply  to  cash  payments  by  using  the  postal  payments  system. 

Therefore,  the  Belgian  government  considers  that  restrictions  similar  to  those  that  apply  to  cash 

payments should be applied to postal payments. To achieve this objective, the draft law introduces 

two  new  elements.  First,  the  draft  law  confines  the  use  of  postal  payments  to  consumers,  thus 

excluding the use of such payments by professionals. According to the explanatory memorandum, 

1  

2  

3  

Directive  (EU)  2018/843  of  the  European  Parliament and  of  the  Council  of  30  May  2018  amending  Directive  (EU) 
2015/849  on  the  prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money  laundering  or  terrorist 
financing, and amending Directives 2009/138/EC and 2013/36/EU (OJ L 156, 19.06.2018, p. 43). 

Council  Decision  98/415/EC  of  29  June  1998  on  the  consultation  of  the  European  Central  Bank  by  national 
authorities regarding draft legislative provisions (OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42). 

Loi du 18 septembre 2017 relative à la prévention du blanchiment de capitaux et du financement du terrorisme et à 
la limitation de l'utilisation des espèces/ Wet van 18 september 2017 tot voorkoming van het witwassen van geld en 
de  financiering  van  terrorisme  en  tot  beperking  van  het  gebruik  van  contanten,  telle  que  modifiée/zoals  nader 
gewijzigd, Moniteur Belge/Belgisch Staatsblad, 06.10.2017, p. 90839. 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

the exclusion of professionals is justified because it is safe to assume that anyone who is a legal 

person,  a  self-employed  person  or  a  member  of  a  liberal  profession,  has  a  bank  account  that 

allows them to respect their financial obligations, and have broad access to other lawful means for 

settling  monetary  debts.  Second,  the  draft  law  introduces  a  maximum  limit  of  €  3,000  for  postal 

payments to bank accounts and postal current accounts made by consumers. The draft law makes 

it  clear  that  payments  of  lower  amounts  that  appear  to  be  linked  will  be  grouped  together  when 

assessing compliance with the € 3,000 limit. 

1.3  The  draft  law  establishes  an  exchange  of  information  regime  between  (among  others)  foreign 

prudential supervisory authorities responsible for supervision of credit or financial institutions, which 

includes  the  ECB,  and  the  Belgian  authorities  responsible  for  supervising  credit  or  financial 

institutions as regards anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (hereinafter 

the  ‘Belgian  AML/CFT  supervisory  authorities  in  the  financial  field’).  In  that  respect,  the  draft  law 
implements Article 57a of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 

(‘AML Directive’). Furthermore, the draft law sets out several conditions applicable to the exchange 

of information regime. Notably, the draft law requires that foreign prudential supervisory authorities 

that supervise entities in the financial field, who are defined as including the prudential supervisory 

authorities of a Member State, the ECB and the prudential supervisory authorities of a third State, 

be subject to a regime of professional secrecy that is at least equivalent to the one that applies to 

the Belgian AML/CFT supervisory authorities in the financial field concerned.  

1.4  The draft law strengthens the legal basis for the NBB’s injunctive powers with regard to an obliged 

entity’s  duty  to  comply  with  requirements  set  by  the  NBB  pursuant  to,  or  as  conditions  for  a 

decision  made  pursuant  to,  the  Belgian  law  of  18  September  2017,  the  implementing  measures 

under  the  AML  Directive  and  Regulation  (EU)  2015/847  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council5,  and  the  duty  of  care  under  the  binding  provisions  on  financial  embargoes.  The 

explanatory memorandum points out that the purpose of the draft law in this respect is, insofar as 

necessary, to clarify the legal basis of the NBB’s injunctive power based on a non-compliance with 

the  NBB’s  requirements,  even  if  the  rationale  for  these  decisions  can  be  deduced  from  a 

reasonable interpretation of existing legislation. 

1.5  The draft law also specifies that the NBB is entitled to ask the statutory auditor of an obliged entity 

to draft a special report on the entity’s compliance with the Belgian law of 18 September 2017 and 

the measures implementing Directive (EU) 2015/849 and Regulation (EU) 2015/847, and the duty 

of care under the binding provisions on financial embargoes. If the relevant obliged entity does not 

have a statutory auditor, the NBB is entitled to appoint an auditor in order to draft the special report. 

The explanatory memorandum clarifies that the purpose of this measure is to improve the NBB’s 

control over obliged entities by ensuring a closer collaboration with statutory auditors. 

4  

5  

Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use 
of  the  financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money  laundering  or  terrorist  financing,  amending  Regulation  (EU) 
No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ, L 141, 05.06.2015, p. 73). 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/847  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May  2015  on  information 
accompanying transfers of funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 (OJ, L 141, 05.06.2015, p.1). 

2 

 
                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

2. 

General observations 

2.1 

Limitation of the use of postal payments 

2.1.1  The ECB understands that a Belgian postal payment is a financial transaction whereby an order is 

given to the postal service to credit a sum of money to a postal current account or a bank account 

registered  with  a  financial  institution  established  in  Belgium,  and  that  such  payments  generally 

involve cash. Under the current Belgian  Law on AML/CFT professionals,  whether legal or natural 

persons, may only make cash payments up to an amount of € 3,000 per payment, this limit does 
not currently apply to postal payments6. However, the ECB understands that legal persons are only 

entitled  to  make  postal  payments if the  payment  is  made to  a  postal current  account  held  by  the 
Belgian State or a public institution7. The ECB also understands that a limit of € 3,000 is applicable 

in  practice  for  postal  payments  made  by  natural  persons  to  bank  accounts  registered  with  a 

financial  institution  established  in  Belgium,  based  on  the  general  conditions  applicable  to  postal 
payments,  which  is  more  restrictive  than  under  applicable  law8.  Given  these  constraints  the  ECB 

understands that, in practice, the postal payments system is rarely used in Belgium, and that most 

natural persons and companies make payments using cash or bank accounts. 

2.1.2  The ECB understands that, following the adoption of the draft law, professionals will have to make 

payments  either  from  their  bank  accounts  or,  subject  to  the  €  3,000  limit,  in  cash.  As  far  as 

concerns  postal  payments  made  by  natural  persons,  while  there  is  currently  no  legal  limit  on  the 

amount of such payments, the ECB understands that, in order to strengthen the Belgian AML/CFT 

framework,  the  draft  law  merely  confirms  the  restriction  currently  imposed  by  bpost’s  terms  and 

conditions to limit postal payments made by customers to bank accounts registered with a financial 

institution  established  in  Belgium  to  €  3,000,  and  extends  this  €  3,000  limit  to  postal  payments 

made to postal current accounts. 

2.1.3  The ECB understands that the qualification of postal payments is a matter of Belgian law, but that it 

could  be  considered  that  the  restrictions  inserted  by  the  draft  law  have  an  impact  on  cash 
payments. In this respect, the ECB recalls that Commission Recommendation 2010/191/EU9 states 

that the acceptance of cash payments should be the rule, however it also acknowledges that cash 

may be refused for reasons related to the ‘good faith principle’, without this constituting a breach of 

the legal tender status of cash. In considering whether, or to what extent, it may be permissible to 

introduce a more general limitation of the obligation to accept cash payments in euro, regard must 

be had to Article 63(2) of the Treaty, which provides that, within the framework of the provisions set 

out  in  Chapter  4  (Capital  and  payments)  of  Title  IV  (Free  Movement  of  Persons,  Services  and 

Capital) of the Treaty, all restrictions on payments between Member States and between Member 

States and third countries  shall  be prohibited. Under Article 65(1)  of  the Treaty,  the provisions  of 

6  

7  

8  

9  

Article 67, § 2, Loi du 18 septembre 2017 relative à la prévention du blanchiment de capitaux et du financement du 
terrorisme  et  à  la  limitation  de  l'utilisation  des  espèces/  Wet  van  18  september  2017  tot  voorkoming  van  het 
witwassen  van  geld  en  de  financiering  van  terrorisme  en  tot  beperking  van  het  gebruik  van  contanten,  telle  que 
modifiée/zoals nader gewijzigd, Moniteur Belge/Belgisch Staatsblad, 06.10.2017, p. 90839. 

Article 3 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Belgian post office (‘bpost’) which applies to postal payments, 
available at: https://www.bpost.be/sites/default/files/free_form/GTC_versement_2019_FR.pdf. 

Article  9,  §  1  of  the  General  Terms  and  Conditions  of  bpost  which  applied  to  postal  payments,  available  at: 
https://www.bpost.be/sites/default/files/free_form/GTC_versement_2019_FR.pdf. 
Commission  Recommendation  2010/191/EU  of  22  March  2010  on  the  scope  and  effects  of  legal  tender  of  euro 
banknotes and coins (OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p. 70). 

3 

                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

Article  63  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  the  right  of  Member  States  to,  inter  alia,  take  all  requisite 

measures to prevent infringements of national laws and regulations, in particular in the field of, inter 

alia, taxation, or to take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or public security. 

Under  Article  65(3)  of  the  Treaty,  these  measures  shall  not  constitute  a  means  of  arbitrary 

discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of payments as defined in Article 63. 

The  draft  law’s  purpose  of  reinforcing  the  measures  taken  to  prevent  money  laundering  and 

terrorist  financing  may,  in  general,  constitute  ‘grounds  of  public  policy  or  public  security’  that 

justifies the establishment of limitations on cash payments.  

2.1.4  Also,  Union  law  must  be  interpreted  in  order  to  ascertain  the  conditions  that  a  limitation  on 

payments in euro banknotes and coins should fulfil in order to comply with the legal tender status of 

euro banknotes and coins when general limitations to the obligation to accept cash payments are 
introduced10.  In  this  respect,  Recital  19  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  974/9811  states  that 

‘limitations on payments in notes and coins, established by Member States for public reasons, are 

not  incompatible  with  the  status  of  legal  tender  of  euro  banknotes  and  coins,  provided  that  other 
lawful  means  for  the  settlement  of  monetary  debts  are  available’12.  Other  lawful  means  for  the 

settlement of monetary debts, ensuring similar benefits to those of cash, are generally available in 

Belgium for the transactions that are subject to the limits on cash postal payments under the draft 

law.  The  draft  law’s  purpose  of  reinforcing  the  measures  taken  to  prevent  money  laundering  and 

terrorist  financing  may,  in  general,  constitute  a  ‘public  reason’  that  justifies  the  establishment  of 
limitations on cash payments13. 

2.1.5  Moreover,  limitations  on  cash  payments  should  be  proportionate  to  the  objectives  pursued  and 

should not go beyond  what is necessary to achieve such objectives. This condition is particularly 

relevant  in  the  present  case  as  one  of  the  two  limitations  introduced  by  the  draft  law  applies  to 

consumers. Any negative impact of the proposed limitations should therefore be carefully weighed 

against  the  anticipated  public  benefits.  When  considering  whether  a  limitation  is  proportionate 

attention  should  also  be  given  to  whether  any  alternative  measures  could  be  adopted  that  would 
fulfil the relevant objective and have a less adverse impact14. 

2.1.6  Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the ability to pay in cash remains particularly important 

for  certain  groups  in  society  that,  for  various  legitimate  reasons,  prefer  to  use  cash  rather  than 

other payment methods. Cash is generally also appreciated as a payment instrument because it is 

widely accepted, fast and facilitates control over the  payer’s spending. Cash is also a convenient 

fall-back solution in case the technical infrastructure for wireless payments is unavailable, e.g. due 

to  power  failures  or  natural  disasters.  In  addition,  cash  is  the  only  means  of  payment  that  allows 

citizens to instantly settle a transaction in central bank money and at face value, without the legal 

10  

11  
12  

13  
14  

See  paragraph  2.1  of  Opinion  CON/2017/18,  paragraph  3.1  of  Opinion  CON/2017/20,  paragraph  2.3  of  Opinion 
CON/2017/27, paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2017/40, paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2019/4 and paragraph 2.1 of 
Opinion CON/2019/46. All ECB opinions are available on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 1). 
See for example paragraph 2.1 of Opinion CON/2013/18, paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2014/4 and paragraph 2.2 
of Opinion CON/2014/37. 

See, for example, paragraph 2.5 of Opinion CON/2017/40 and paragraph 2.3 of Opinion CON/2019/46. 
See  for  example  paragraph  2.3  of  Opinion  CON/2014/4,  paragraph  2.3.  of  Opinion  CON/2014/37,  paragraphs 2.6 
and 2.7 of Opinion CON/2017/8 and paragraph 3.3 of Opinion CON/2017/20. 

4 

                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

possibility  of  imposing  a  fee  for  the  payment  in  question.  Moreover,  cash  payments  facilitate  the 

inclusion of the entire population in the economy since it may be used to settle any kind of financial 

transaction. 

2.1.7  The ECB welcomes that the complete prohibition to proceed with postal payments does not apply 

to  consumers.  In  addition,  the  ECB  understands,  as  noted  above,  that  the  €  3,000  euro  limit  is 

already applicable if consumers want to make a postal payment to a bank account. Furthermore, 

the  ECB  understands,  that  the  practical  impact  of  the  extension  of  this  limitation  to  postal  cash 

payments made to postal current accounts would be rather limited.  

2.1.8  As  regards  the  complete  prohibition  on  professionals  using  postal  payment  services,  the  ECB 

understands  that  this  measure  has  in  practice  a  marginal  effect  on  professionals’  use  of  this 

particular  means  of  payment.  As  noted  in  paragraph  2.1.1,  professionals  who  are  legal  persons 

currently have limited access to postal payment services, as they may only make postal payments 

to  certain  postal  current  accounts.  It  also  seems  that  the  number  of  professionals  who  are  legal 

persons or natural persons who use postal payment services is quite limited in Belgium.   

2.2  Exchange of information  

2.2.1  The  ECB  welcomes  the  provisions  of  the  draft  law  which  establish  an  obligation  for  the  Belgian 

AML/CFT supervisory authorities in the financial field to cooperate and exchange information with 
the  prudential  supervisory  authorities  of  Member  States  and  the  ECB15.  The  task  of  supervising 

credit institutions in relation to the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of 

money laundering and the financing of terrorism has not been conferred upon the ECB. However, 

the  outcome  of  AML/CFT  supervision  is  important  to  consider  for  discharging  the  specific  tasks 

conferred  upon  the  ECB  concerning  the  prudential  supervision  of  credit  institutions  under  Article 
127(6)  of  the  Treaty  and  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/201316.  It  is  therefore  of  the  utmost 

importance  that  the  ECB,  as  well  as  other  prudential  supervisors,  receive  timely  and  reliable 

information from AML/CFT supervisors about risks relating to money laundering or the financing of 

terrorism  that  concern  the  entities  under  their  supervision,  as  well  as  any  breaches  of  AML/CFT 
requirements by these supervised entities17. 

2.2.2  The ECB notes that the draft law also imposes an obligation on the Belgian prudential supervisory 

authorities  to  cooperate  and  exchange  information  with  AML/CFT  supervisory  authorities  in  the 
financial field18. This requirement does not appear to be based on the new Article 57a of the AML 

Directive,  as  the  cooperation  requirement  for  prudential  supervisory  authorities  in  this  respect  is 
covered by Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and  of the Council19 (‘CRD IV’) (as 

15  
16  

17  
18  
19  

Article 131/1, § 1 al. 1 of the Law on AML/CFT, as amended by the draft law.  
Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank 
concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63). 

See paragraph 1.2 of Opinion CON/2018/55 and paragraph 4.1 of Opinion CON/2019/5. 
Article 131/1, § 2 of the Law on AML/CFT, as amended by the draft law.  

Directive  2013/36/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  of  26 June  2013  on  access  to  the  activity  of 
credit  institutions  and  the  prudential  supervision  of  credit  institutions  and  investment  firms,  amending  Directive 
2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 176, 27.06.2013, 
p. 338). 

5 

                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

amended by Directive (EU) 2019/878 of the European Parliament and of the Council20 (‘CRD V’)21) 

and not by the AML Directive. The ECB therefore understands that the requirement set out in the 

draft law is a national obligation imposed  on Belgian prudential supervisory authorities, which  will 

later  be  adapted  in  line  with  the  CRD  V  requirements  in  the  course  of  transposing  the  CRD  V  in 

Belgium. The ECB would recommend clarifying this in the explanatory memorandum.  

2.2.3  Regarding  the  conditions  applicable  to  the  exchange  of  information  in  the  context  of  the 

cooperation  regime,  the  draft  law  requires  that  foreign  prudential  supervisory  authorities,  which 

according to the draft law includes the ECB, must apply a regime of professional secrecy that is at 

least equivalent to the one that applies to the Belgian AML/CFT supervisory authorities concerned. 

The ECB understands that the  draft law  aims, inter alia,  to  align the  professional secrecy regime 

that  applies  to  the  Belgian  AML/CFT  supervisory  authorities  in  the  financial  field  with  the 

harmonised  regime  set  out  in  the  AML  Directive.  In  its  Article  57a(2)(b)  the  AML  Directive  notes 
that the exchange of information between the AML/CFT supervisory authorities and the prudential 

supervisory  authorities,  including  the  ECB,  ‘shall  be  subject  to  the  conditions  of  professional 

secrecy  indicated  in  Article  57a(1)’.  The  explanatory  memorandum  of  the  draft  law  specifies  that 

the  professional  secrecy  regime  applicable  to  certain  prudential  supervisory  authorities  is 

harmonised  under  Union  law,  notably  citing  Directive  2013/36/EU.  In  the  present  case,  the 

professional  secrecy  regime  applicable 

to  prudential  supervisory  authorities  pursuant 

to 

Article 53(1)  of Directive 2013/36/EU is similar to the regime provided for  by  Article 57a(1)  of  the 

AML  Directive.  Therefore,  the  ECB  understands  that  the  equivalence  of  professional  secrecy 

regimes  required  by  the  draft  law,  interpreted  together  with  the  AML  Directive,  would  be 

automatically  met  for  prudential  supervisory  authorities  subject  to  Article  53(1)  of  Directive 
2013/36/EU,  including  the  ECB22.  It  would  be  helpful  if  the  draft  law  or  the  explanatory 

memorandum could confirm this interpretation.  

2.2.4  Another  condition  laid  down  by  the  draft  law  is  that  of  reciprocity  as  regards  the  exchange  of 

information. According to the AML Directive, the condition of reciprocity only applies to cooperation 

with  the  AML/CFT  supervisory  authorities  of  third  countries.  The  draft  law  imposes  a  general 

reciprocity condition, which would seem to apply not only to the AML/CFT supervisory authorities of 

third countries but also to the exchange of information with authorities of other Member States and 

with  the  ECB  when  acting  in  its  prudential  supervisory  capacity.  In  the  context  of  the  European 

20  

21  

22  

Directive  (EU)  2019/878  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20 May  2019  amending  Directive 
2013/36/EU  as  regards  exempted  entities,  financial  holding  companies,  mixed  financial  holding  companies, 
remuneration, supervisory measures and powers and capital conservation measures (OJ L 150, 7.6.2019, p. 253). 

The explanatory memorandum of the draft law does not refer to the implementation of the CRD V, however, for the 
sake of completeness, the ECB notes that the draft law does not contain all the requirements set out in Article 117(5) 
of  the  CRD  IV.  Indeed,  Article  117(5)  of  the  CRD  IV  establishes  a  cooperation  regime  and  information  exchange 
between prudential and AML/CFT supervisory authorities, provided that such exchange does ‘not impinge on an on-
going  inquiry,  investigation  or  proceedings  in  accordance  with  the  criminal  or  administrative  law’  of  the  relevant 
Member  State.  This  condition  is  not  set  out  in  the  draft  law.  At  the  same  time,  Article  131/1,  §  2  of  the  Law  on 
AML/CFT,  as  amended  by  the  draft  law  which  makes  reference  to  §  1,  also  imposes  on  Belgian  prudential 
supervisory authorities a requirement to make use of their statutory prerogatives in order to lend their support to the 
AML/CFT supervisory authorities of other Member States in the context of investigations. This requirement does not 
appear to be based on the AML Directive and is also not a part of Article 117(5) of the CRD IV. 

The professional secrecy regime applicable to the ECB with regard to the tasks conferred on it by Regulation (EU) 
No 1024/2013 is set out in Article 27 of the Regulation and refers to the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB and to 
the relevant acts of Union law. In this context the term ‘relevant acts of the Union law’ should mainly be understood 
as referring to Directive 2013/36/EU. 

6 

                                                 
ECB-PUBLIC 

Economic  Area  (EEA),  however,  reciprocity  already  appears  to  be  ensured  by  the  requirements 

laid  down  in  Union  law.  Pursuant  to  Article  117(5)  of  Directive  2013/36/EU  the  AML/CFT 

supervisory  authorities  of  credit  and  financial  institutions,  the  financial  intelligence  units  and  the 

prudential supervisory authorities in the Member States are subject to cooperation and information 

exchange  obligations.  In  addition,  as  regards  information  exchange  between  the  ECB  and  the 

AML/CFT supervisory authorities of credit and financial institutions in the EEA, mutual information 

exchange  is  ensured  by  the  multilateral  agreement  on  the  practical  modalities  of  exchange  of 

information  in  line  with  Article  57a(2)  of  Directive  (EU)  2015/849.  This  condition  of  the  draft  law 

should therefore not affect the exchange of information between prudential supervisory authorities 

in the EEA, including the ECB in its supervisory role. The ECB would recommend that this aspect 

be clarified in the explanatory memorandum or the draft law. 

2.2.5  The ECB also notes that Article 132 of the draft law states that cooperation and the exchange of 

information  is  subject  to  a  prohibition  to  communicate  the  received  information  to  a  third  party 

without  prior  written  authorisation  from  the  authority  that  originally  provided  the  information. 

Article 132  of  the  draft  law  further  introduces  an  exception  to  this  principle:  in  the  event  of 

cooperation  between:  (i)  a  Belgian  AML/CFT  supervisory  authority  supervising  entities  in  the 

financial  field  and  a  prudential  supervisory  authority  of  a  Member  State,  which,  according  to  the 

draft law includes the ECB; or (ii) a Belgian prudential supervisory authority and another Member 

State’s AML/CFT supervisory authority supervising entities in the financial field, the consent of the 

authority that originally provided the information is not required if the subsequent communication by 

the authority that has received the information from the Belgian AML/CFT supervisory authority in 

the  financial  field  is  made  to:  (i)  a  Member  State’s  AML/CFT  supervisory  authorities;  or  (ii)  a 

Member State’s prudential supervisory authorities. The ECB notes that under the applicable Union 

law, in particular Article 56 of Directive 2013/36/EU, prudential supervisory authorities may transmit 

information  they  have  received  to  a    set  of  subsequent  recipient  authorities  in  Member  States, 

which is broader than that envisaged by the draft law, without having to obtain the prior consent of 

the  originating  authorities.  The  ECB  would  recommend  clarifying  that  these  existing  information 

exchange procedures and permissions set out in the Directive 2013/36/EU are not affected by the 

draft law.  

2.3  Powers of the NBB 

2.3.1  The draft law addresses the NBB’s powers to sanction violations of the Belgian Law on AML/CFT, 

the measures implementing the AML Directive and Regulation (EU) 2015/847, and the duty of care 

imposed  by  the  binding  provisions  on  financial  embargoes.  Insofar  as  necessary  the  draft  law 

elaborates  the  legal  basis  for  the  NBB  to  issue  injunctions  in  the  event  that  an  obliged  entity 

breaches its duty to comply with requirements set by the NBB pursuant to, or as conditions for a 

decision made pursuant to, these legal acts. The draft law also strengthens the collaboration of the 

NBB with the statutory auditors of the concerned obliged entities. The ECB welcomes the fact that 

insofar as is necessary the draft law specifies the legal basis of the NBB’s powers, and therefore 

strengthens the NBB’s role as an AML/CFT supervisory  authority. The ECB understands that the 

draft  law  only  clarifies  the  NBB’s  role  in  this  respect,  and  does  not  materially  alter  the  NBB’s 

mandate or tasks. Therefore, the need to assess whether the conferral of new tasks on a national 

7 

central bank complies with the prohibition of monetary financing does not arise in the present case. 

ECB-PUBLIC 

This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website. 

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 25 May 2020. 

[signed] 

The President of the ECB 

Christine LAGARDE 

8