Communication from the Commission – Towards a new comprehensive approach to preventing and combating money laundering and terrorism financing
Date: 2020-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: single market

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND CAPITAL 
MARKETS UNION 

Bank, insurance and financial crime 
Financial crime 

Summary  

Consultation on the Action Plan for a comprehensive Union policy on 
preventing money laundering and terrorist financing 

This  document  provides  a  factual  overview  of  the 
contributions  to  the  ‘Public  consultation  on  an 
action  plan  for  a  comprehensive  Union  policy  on 
preventing  money 
terrorist 
financing’.  The  content  should  not  be  regarded  as 
reflecting the position of the Commission. 

laundering  and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 

2.  Consultation strategy ............................................................................................................... 3 

3.  Feedback on the roadmap ........................................................................................................ 4 

4.  Public consultation .................................................................................................................. 4 

5.  Consultation of the European Banking Authority ................................................................. 13 

6.  Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor ........................................................... 13 

7.  High-level conference on the future of the AML/CFT framework ....................................... 14 

 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

Delivering an economy that  works  for the people  is  a priority for this Commission. In  light  of 
this  overarching  goal,  on  7  May  2020  the  Commission  presented  an  Action  Plan  for  a 
comprehensive  Union  policy  on  preventing  money  laundering  and  terrorism  financing1.  The 
Action  Plan  sets  out  the  measures  that  the  Commission  will  undertake  to  better  enforce, 
supervise and coordinate the EU’s rules on combating money laundering and terrorist financing, 
with six priorities, or pillars: 

1.  Ensuring  the  effective  implementation  of  the  existing  EU  Anti-Money  Laundering  and 

Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) framework, 

2.  Establishing an EU single rulebook on AML/CFT, 
3.  Bringing about EU-level AML/CFT supervision,  
4.  Establishing a support and cooperation mechanism for FIUs, 
5.  Enforcing EU-level criminal law provisions and information exchange, 
6.  Strengthening the international dimension of the EU AML/CFT framework.  

In creating this new initiative, the Commission builds on the findings of the 2019 Anti-Money 
Laundering Package2. This approach has the political support of both the European Parliament3 
and the Council4, as well as from the large parts of the private sector, which recognises that the 
EU cannot tolerate another wave of money laundering cases.  

The results of the consultation activities presented in this document must be read in this context, 
bearing in mind that extensive exchanges of views have taken place since 2018, thus before the 
announcement and adoption of the Action Plan of 7 May, and continue today. 

2.  Consultation strategy 

In order to ensure that the Commission’s proposal adequately takes into account the views of all 
interested stakeholders, the consultation strategy supporting the Action Plan has been built on the 
following components: 

-  A consultation on the roadmap announcing the Commission’s Action Plan; 
-  A public consultation on the actions put forward in the Action Plan, open to the general 

public and all stakeholder groups; 

-  A targeted consultation of Member States and competent AML/CFT authorities; 

1  Communication  from  the  Commission  -  Action  plan  for  a  comprehensive  Union  policy  on  preventing  money 

laundering and terrorism financing (C(2020) 2800 final) 

2  Communication  from  the  Commission  -  Towards  better  implementation  of  the  EU's  anti-money  laundering  and 
countering  the  financing  of  terrorism  framework  (COM/2019/360  final),  Report  from  the  Commission  on  the 
assessment  of  recent  alleged  money  laundering  cases  involving  EU  credit  institutions  (COM/2019/373  final), 
Supranational Risk Assessment (COM/2019/370 final), and report on FIU cooperation (COM/2019/371). 

3  Reference 2019/2820/RSP. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2019-

0022_EN.html.  

4 Reference 14823/19. Available at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14823-2019-INIT/en/pdf.  

                                                           
-  A request for advice from the European Banking Authority (EBA); 
-  An opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor, and 
-  A  final  high-level  conference  bringing  together  representatives  from  Member  States, 

competent authorities, academia, civil society and the private sector. 

The results of these components, with the exception of the targeted consultations, are presented 
below. 

3.  Feedback on the roadmap 

A  roadmap  announcing  the  Action  Plan  was 
announced  on  the  Commission’s  “Have  Your 
Say!”  Portal5.  The  consultation  period  for  the 
roadmap  ran  between  11  February  and  12 
March  2020,  and  received  42  contributions 
from a varied range of stakeholders (see graph).  

Public 
authority 
5% 

Other 
12% 

Audit 
10% 

NGOs 
12% 

Luxury 
goods, Art 
and 
Antiques 
5% 

Companies 
9% 

Financial 
sector 
17% 

Credit 
institutions 
12% 

Most feedback supports  increasing the level of 
effectiveness  of  the  EU  AML/CFT  framework 
through  more  harmonised  rules,  including  for  virtual  assets,  which  should  both  allow  to  treat 
different  risk  situations  in  different  manners  and  remove  current  inconsistencies  with  other 
pieces of legislation (e.g. Payment Account Directive6), which make it difficult for some groups 
to achieve financial inclusion.  

Lawyers 
7% 

Citizens 
9% 

Insurance 
2% 

As regards authorities, the feedback calls for providing more tools to FIUs and for setting up an 
EU-level  supervisor.  Many  respondents  also  asked  for  improved  exchange  of  information, 
including  through  public-private  partnerships.  Contrary  to  the  majority  opinion,  some 
representatives  from  the  non-financial  sector  considered  the  current  functioning  of  the 
framework satisfactory. 

4.  Public consultation  

The  public  consultation  was  launched  on  7  May  2020,  in  parallel  to  the  adoption  of  the  AML 
Action Plan, and ran until 26 August. The consultation received 202 official contributions, while 
7  additional  replies  were  submitted  informally.  As  shown  by  the  graph  below,  replies  were 
received from 24 of the 27 EU Member States, and from 6 non-EU countries. 

5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12176-Action-Plan-on-anti-money-

laundering  

6 Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees 

related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features 

                                                           
Replies by country 

50

40

30

20

10

0

E
B

E
D

R
F

L
N

T
I

S
E

E
I

K
D

T
A

Z
C

E
E

E
S

G
B

I

Y F
C

U
L

L
P

T
P

U
H

T
L

T
M

O
R

K
S

L
S

K
U

S
U

H
C

S
H
B

N
A
C

E
S
P

I

B
G
-
K
U

EU

Non-EU

The majority of respondents are private sector 
representatives  (58%),  with  EU  citizens, 
NGOs  and  academia  accounting  for  22%  of 
respondents  are  public 
replies.  7%  of 
authorities. 

Below  is  a  summary  of  the  views  expressed 
with  regard  to  future  EU  action  in  the 
AML/CFT  field:  with  regard  to  the  need  for 
action  in  general,  and  to  the  each  of  the  six 
pillars of the Action Plan.  

Need for action 

Respondents  widely  believe  that  further  action  is  needed  to  combat  money  laundering  and 
terrorism financing (only 1% consider current action sufficient). In recognising the cross-border 
nature  of  such  crimes,  respondents  consider  that  action  at  national  level  alone  will  not  be 
effective. There is a widespread perception that effective results can be achieved at national level 
with support from the EU (39% vs 16%), and even more at EU level (54% vs 8%). Further, it is 
recognised  that  AML/CFT  can  only  be  tackled  effectively  through  international  cooperation 
(46% vs 6%). The need for action at supra-national level is perceived by all stakeholder groups. 
However, the appreciation of the effectiveness of national action varies, with public authorities 
being more prone to consider that national action can be effective than operators in the private 
sector. Citizens also consider action at EU level the most likely to yield positive results.  

 
 
Effectiveness of additional action at different levels 

No additional action

International level

EU level

National level + EU support

National level only

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Effective

Neutral

Ineffective

Don't know

Pillar 1 - Enforcement 

The  public  consultation  invited  stakeholder  views  regarding  the  effectiveness  existing 
enforcement measures of AML /CTF rules.  

The stakeholders view the infringement proceedings as the most effective tool currently available 
at EU level (with 54% of respondents perceiving the measure as effective or very effective). This 
confirms  public  support  for  the  strict  approach  taken  by  the  Commission  to  transposition  and 
application of EU rules. The effectiveness of infringement proceedings is rated the highest by the 
public  authorities,  business  associations  and  NGOs,  while  individual  operators  in  the  private 
sector and citizens have a more varied view of the instrument.  

Effectiveness of existing enforcement tools 

EBA new powers

BUL

Follow-up to complaint

CSRs

Infringement proceedings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Effective

Neutral

Ineffective

Don't know

 
 
 
Views are split regarding how effective other tools – namely breach of Union law investigations 
by the EBA, country-specific recommendations, and Commission’s action following complaints 
by the public are, with respectively 31%, 31% and 27% respondents viewing them as effective. 
In all three cases, between 20% and 27% respondents could not tell how effective those measures 
are,  which  suggests  they  are  also  less  known  to  the  public  than  infringement  proceedings  (in 
respect to which only 5% of respondents picked the “don’t know” option). The positive attitude 
towards  the  potential  effectiveness  of  the  new  powers  granted  to  the  EBA  (with  36%  of 
respondents  viewing  them  as  effective  or  very  effective)  confirms  the  general  demand  for 
effective tools at EU level.  

Beyond the tools indicated in the graph, many respondent underlined that more harmonised rules 
will  positively  impact  their  effective  implementation.  They  also  expressed  the  need  for  clear 
guidance  from  the  EU  for  the  market  participants  on  the  application  of  the  legal  framework, 
enhanced  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  on  information  sharing  and  cross-border 
cases, as well as monitoring by the Commission of Member States’ compliance. 

Pillar 2 – Harmonisation of the rulebook 

As  the  graph  below  shows,  the  public  consultation  confirmed  support  from  the  public  for 
harmonisation of all the rules put forward by the Commission for consultation, with little to no 
variation in the support across stakeholder groups. Yet, in the private sector views are more split 
between  operators  in  the  financial  sector,  who  demand  further  harmonisation,  and  operators  in 
the non-financial sector. The latter express less support than operators in the financial sector for 
almost all of the measures. For example, 73% of operators in  the  financial  sector, and 46% of 
operators  in  the  non-financial  sector  support  introducing  ceilings  for  large  cash  payments,  and 
respectively 84 and 61% of them support harmonising customer due diligence rules. 

Support for harmonisation of AML rules 

Obliged entities
BO registers
E-ID
CDD
FIU tasks
Reporting
Supervision structure/tasks
Record keeping
Sanctions
Cash ceilings
BARs
Freezing powers FIU
Internal controls

Yes

No

Don't know

 
Beyond  the  areas  presented  in  the  graph  above,  the  private  sector  indicated  its  support  for 
harmonising  the  enhanced  due  diligence  measures  to  be  taken  towards  operators  in  high-risk 
third countries. As regards the design of the future rules, while respondents in the private sector 
largely  support  the  idea  of  harmonising  EU  AML/CFT  rules  and  departing  from  the  current 
minimum  harmonisation  approach,  not  least  in  order  to  ensure  a  level-playing  field  within  the 
internal market, they stress the need to maintain a risk-based approach to avoid excessive burden 
on  sectors  less  exposed  to  risks.  Similarly,  public  authorities  seem  rather  wary  of  excessive 
harmonisation in the field of supervision (including sanctioning powers) and regarding the tasks 
and powers of the FIUs. 

There is widespread support for better interaction between AML/CFT rules and other EU rules 
(in  particular  on  exchange  of  information  with  prudential  supervisors,  consistency  with  the 
Payment  Service  Directive  and  the  Payment  Account  Directive  and  introduction  of  strict 
AML/CFT  requirements  in  fit  &  proper  tests),  although  across  respondent  groups  the  level  of 
familiarity  with  these  rules  varies  (with  NGOs,  citizens  and  business  associations  outside  the 
financial sector less likely to respond). Beyond the replies provided to the options put forward by 
the  Commission,  respondents  widely  demanded  clarification  of  how  AML/CFT  rules  interact 
with data protection rules, both in terms of facilitating exchanges of information (private sector) 
and of protecting privacy (NGOs).  

Pillar 3 – EU-level supervision 

The public consultation invited views on the options set out in the Action Plan regarding an EU-
level AML supervisor. 

covering 

Sectors to be covered by the EU-level supervisor 

As  the  chart  shows,  the  majority 
of  respondents  (55%)  consider 
that an EU-level supervisor should 
cover all obliged entities, although 
a relative majority (34%) prefer to 
achieve this gradually. Support for 
financial 
only 
institutions or credit institutions is 
lower 
(respectively  25%  and 
20%). Several  entities  in the non-
financial  sector  oppose  being 
subject  to  EU-level  supervision, 
whether  directly  or  indirectly,  in 
light of their sectorial specificities. Conversely, operators in the financial sector consider that all 
entities should fall within the scope of the EU-level supervisor. Some respondents in the public 

All obliged 
entities/sector
s, but through 
a gradual 
process 
34% 

All obliged 
entities/sector
s 
21% 

Credit 
institutions 
20% 

Financial 
institutions 
25% 

 
sector  commented  that  supervision  by  self-regulatory  bodies  in  the  non-financial  sector  has 
proven to be a failure. 

Powers that the EU-level supervisor should have 

A mix of direct 
and indirect 
powers, 
depending on 
the 
sector/entities 
42% 

Indirect powers 
over all obliged 
entities 
[PERCENTAGE] 

Direct powers 
only over some 
obliged entities 
3% 

Direct powers 
over all obliged 
entities 
6% 

Indirect powers 
over some 
obliged entities 
[PERCENTAGE] 

In  terms  of  powers,  as  the  chart 
to  the  left  shows,  respondents 
oppose  an  EU  supervisor  that 
would  directly  supervise  obliged 
entities  (only  9%  support  this). 
Instead, there is wide support for 
a  “supervisor  of  supervisors” 
who  can  intervene  in  justified 
cases  (49%),  or  for  a  mix  of 
powers,  depending  on  the  sector 
(42%).  This  view  was  shared 
across all stakeholder groups. 

Most respondents were unable to indicate how to identify entities to be directly supervised by the 
EU-level supervisor. This reflects the opinion that supervision of the national supervisors should 
be prioritised. Respondents who had an opinion on this issue indicated that a risk-based approach 
is preferable to identifying the entities from the outset or national supervisors proposing them.  

Finally, the consultation reveals low support for the European Banking Authority becoming the 
future  EU  AML/CFT  supervisor.  While  one  third  of  respondents  did  not  express  any  opinion, 
only  19%  of  those  who  did  supported  the  EBA.  These  respondents  mainly  spoke  for  the  non-
financial sector, a fact underlying the opposition of operators in this sector to being covered by 
EU-level supervision. This option has however little support across all other respondent groups. 
66% of respondents favour a new body, again with quite similar levels of support across all other 
respondent  groups.  Views  are  however  split  as  to  the  structure  that  this  body  should  have.  Of 
those  who  replied  “other”  (essentially  operator  in  the  private  sector),  a  few  would  favour  the 
ECB taking over this task, despite the fact that the Treaty does not provide a legal basis for the 
ECB to perform AML/CFT supervision. 

Pillar 4 – Support and coordination mechanism for Financial Intelligence Units 

The  public  consultation  invited  views  on  the  options  set  out  in  the  Action  Plan  regarding  the 
tasks of the FIU support and coordination mechanism and which body should host it. 

 
 
coordination 

Respondents  across  all  stakeholder 
groups  favour  that  the  FIU  support 
and 
mechanism 
performs a broad array of tasks. The 
emphasis  placed  on  assisting  the 
analytical  work  of  the  FIUs  rather 
than  on  the  sole  provision  of  IT 
tools  confirms  expectations  that  the 
mechanism  will  help  FIUs  produce 
better  financial  intelligence  rather 
than 
technical 
providing 
just 
assistance. 

Tasks of the mechanism 

0

50

100

150

Assessing trends

Developing templates for STRs

Facilitating joint analyses

Issuing guidance

Building capacity (IT)

Developing manuals

Hosting the FIU.net

Body that should host the mechanism 

Formal 
network of 
FIUs 
24% 

Europol, 
based on a 
revised 
mandate 
16% 

FIU 
Platform, as 
a formal 
committee 
11% 

Answers  diverge  on  the  form  the  mechanism 
should  take  and  who  should  host  it.  Again, 
more  than  one  third  of  respondents  did  not 
express  a  view  on  this,  stressing  the  priority 
that content should take over form. The graph 
to the left shows the reactions of respondents 
who  had  an  opinion  on  this  issue,  and 
indicates  a  preference  for  mechanism  to  be 
hosted  by  the  EU  AML  supervisor.  This 
option is clearly favoured by EU citizens and 
companies,  while  business  associations  and 
public authorities have their views split across 
the  different  options  and  NGOs  favour  a  formal  network  of  FIUs.  Overall,  the  answers 
underscore that this mechanism will have to maintain a high level of autonomy for the FIUs.  

The future 
EU AML/CFT 
supervisor 
33% 

New 
dedicated 
EU body 
16% 

Pillar 5 – Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) 

The public consultation  invited  views  on the options set  out  in  the Action Plan concerning the 
public-private  partnerships  between  entities  subject  to  AML/CFT  obligations  and  public 
authorities, in particular in the field of information sharing.  

 
 
  
Actions needed to facilitate the development of PPPs  

Regulate the functioning of public-private
partnerships

Issue guidance on the application of rules with
respect to public-private partnerships (e.g.
antitrust)

Put in place more specific rules on the obligation
for financial intelligence units to provide
feedback to obliged entities

Promote sharing of good practices

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Replies  in  relation  to  this  pillar  confirm  the  Commission’s  decision  to  refrain  from  regulating 
PPPs at  present, given their early stage of development, and issue guidance and promote  good 
practices  around  the  European  Union,  instead.  In  fact,  as  illustrated  by  the  graph  above,  the 
majority of respondents (81%) who had an opinion on this topic indicated that the promotion of 
sharing of good practices  is needed to facilitate the development of PPPs (compared with 36% 
who favour regulation of the PPPs).  

On the other hand, there is a firm support for clearer rules as regards FIU’s feedback to obliged 
entities, with 76% of respondents supporting such a solution. Many respondents commented that 
they  currently  experience  limited  feedback  from  the  FIUs,  and  that  the  feedback  system  is  not 
functioning effectively.  

Respondents  also  stressed  their  concerns  over  sharing  personal  data  and  potential  impact  of 
information  sharing  on  civil  liberties,  which  confirms  the  need  for  additional  guidance  in  this 
area.  

Pillar 6 – The EU’s global role 

A  relative  majority  (54%)  of  stakeholders  support  giving  the  Commission  the  task  of 
representing the EU at  the  Financial Action Task Force (FATF). However, many  consider that 
the  Commission  should  play  a  strong  role  alongside  the  Member  States,  rather  than  replacing 
them. The support for giving the Commission the task of representing the EU was higher among 
representatives of the private sector and citizens than among the public authorities. This was also 
reflected  in  the  comments,  where  some  of  the  public  authorities  underlined  that  the  Member 
States who are currently members of FATF should retain their membership and associated rights, 
and expressed the need for more clarification on the relationship between representation in FATF 
and  the  voting  itself.  Some  respondents  also  note  that  the  EU  needs  to  build  a  strong  global 

 
profile first, while others refer to the fact that Member States’ membership is split between the 
FATF (14 MS) and Moneyval (13 MS) – acting as FATF Style Regional Body for Europe, as a 
weakness. 

Effectiveness of giving the Commission the task of 
representing the EU in the FATF 

Don't know 
5% 

Not effective at 
all 
7% 

Rather ineffective 
8% 

Very effective 
24% 

Rather effective 
30% 

Neutral 
26% 

On  the  other  hand,  almost  all  respondents  consider  that  when  EU  standards  go  beyond  FATF 
ones,  the  EU  should  push  for  raising  global  standards  to  the  EU  levels,  with  no  considerable 
differences among different groups of stakeholders (see graph below). Respondents from private 
sectors often noted that this would ensure a level playing field for EU businesses and mitigate the 
money  laundering  risk  associated  with  subsidiaries  established  in  third  countries.  Some, 
however, expressed doubts as to whether an effective push for aligning FATF standards with EU 
ones is feasible.  

Effectiveness of pushing for FATF standards to align to EU ones 

Don't know 
6% 

Rather ineffective 
3% 

Not effective at 
all 
6% 

Very effective 
34% 

Neutral 
13% 

Rather effective 
38% 

 
 
5.  Consultation of the European Banking Authority 

In March 2020, the Commission services requested advice from the European Banking Authority 
on the areas where AML/CFT rules could be strengthened. The EBA provided its opinion on 10 
September7.  

The  EBA  recommended  the  Commission  to  harmonise  aspects  of  the  current  EU  AML/CFT 
framework  where  divergence  of  national  rules  has  had  a  significant  adverse  impact,  such  as 
customer  due  diligence  measures,  internal  control  systems,  supervisory  risk  assessments, 
cooperation and enforcement. These common rules should be set out in directly applicable Union 
law. 

The  EBA  further  suggested  strengthening  aspects  of  the  EU’s  legal  framework  where 
vulnerabilities exist. In particular, with regard of the powers of AML/CFT supervisors, the EBA 
recommended that the Commission set out the modalities of cooperation between supervisors of 
cross-border groups. Moreover, the EBA observed that explicitly requiring financial institutions 
to identify and report suspicious activity, rather than focusing on suspicious transactions, could 
have a significant positive impact on the quality of the EU’s AML/CTF defences.  

The  EBA  recommended  to  expand  and  clarify  the  list  of  obliged  entities,  in  particular  with 
regard  to  crowdfunding  service  providers,  general  insurers,  investment  firms  and  investment 
funds, consumer credit providers, and virtual asset service providers. 

Finally,  the  EBA  suggested  clarifying  provisions  in  sectoral  financial  services  legislation  (in 
particular data protection, payment services, financial sanctions and deposit guarantee schemes) 
to  ensure  that  they  are  compatible  with  the  EU’s  AML/CFT  objectives.  EBA  suggested  a 
revision  of  the  EU’s  financial  services  legislation  with  a  focus  on  the  following  problems: 
authorization  and  qualifying  holdings,  passporting,  ongoing  supervisions  and  cooperation 
between prudential and AML/CFT competent authorities and other public stakeholders.  

6.  Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor 

On 23 July, the European Data Protection Supervisor issued an Opinion8 on the Commission’s 
Action Plan. The EPDS assessed the data protection implications of the Commission initiatives. 
The EDPS welcomed areas where the Action Plan focusses on convergence with data protection 

7  https://eba.europa.eu/eba-calls-eu-commission-establish-single-rulebook-fighting-money-laundering-and-terrorist-
financing  
8 https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publications/stellungnahmen-des-edsb/comprehensive-union-
policy-preventing_en  

 
 
                                                           
rules  but  also  highlighted  areas  where  impacts  on  the  rights  to  privacy  and  personal  data 
protection will have to be carefully considered. 

Regarding  areas  where  the  two  fields  converge,  the  EDPS  welcomed  the  envisaged 
harmonisation of the AML/CFT framework through the adoption of a Regulation, as this would 
result  in  a  direct  and  more  consistent  application  of  the  main  rules  by  Member  States.  At  the 
same  time,  many  areas  concerned  by  enhanced  harmonisation  -  such  as  the  list  of  obliged 
entities, customer due diligence requirements, internal controls, reporting obligations, provisions 
on beneficial ownership registers and central bank account mechanisms – involve the processing 
of  a  substantial  amount  of  personal  data.  The  EDPS  advised  the  Commission  on,  i.e.,  rules 
concerning compliance by FIUs and the necessity of establishing measures to ensure the security 
of personal data to accompany the digitalized CDD.  

As for the planned creation of an EU-level supervisor, the EDPS suggested that the Commission 
should provide it with a specific legal basis to process personal data as well as the necessary data 
protection  safeguards,  particularly  regarding  information  sharing  and  international  transfers  of 
data. 

The EDPS welcomed the development of PPPs for the research and analysis of typologies and 
trends in AML/CFT, within the respect of the boundaries of the GDPR. On the other hand, the 
EDPS  expressed  concerns  that  the  use  of  PPPs  for  the  sharing  of  operational  information  on 
intelligence suspects by law enforcement authorities to obliged entities would lead to a high risk 
for the individuals’ rights to privacy and data protection. 

7.  High-level conference on the future of the AML/CFT framework 

On  30  September,  the  Commission  organised  a  high-level  conference  with  three  panel  debates 
dealing  with  the  three  objectives  for  which  this  impact  assessment  analyses  possible  policy 
options. These panels brought together representatives from national and EU authorities, MEPs, 
private sector and civil society representatives and academia.  

The panels concluded that: 

-  There is a need for more harmonised rules, as well as better information sharing. 
-  As regards EU-level supervision, while the financial sector is a priority, the non-financial 
sector also needs to be covered. In this area, supervision by self-regulatory bodies has not 
worked adequately. An EU supervisor should be an independent agency with the power 
to  impose  sanctions  and  responsible  for  supervising  high-risk  entities  identified  on  the 
basis of an EU-wide risk assessment. This supervisor should work closely with national 
supervisors.  

-  FIUs  need  better  tools  to  perform  their  work.  The  key  challenge  is  understanding  how 
criminals operate and while centralised reporting and production of financial intelligence 
at EU level would not work, joint analyses could significantly improve the detection of 
suspicious flows. This would improve work between FIUs and cooperation with reporting 

entities. Those entities in the non-financial sector are particularly exposed and may often 
act as enablers.  

Two  high-profile  prosecutors  took  the  floor  as  keynote  speakers,  focusing  on  the  most  urgent 
threats:  uncapped  cash  payments,  crowdfunding,  virtual  currencies  and  prepaid  cards.  They 
considered financial intelligence key to detecting criminal activities.  

In their closing remarks, the Commission, Council and European Parliament committed to taking 
bold steps to protect the EU financial system from illicit money.