Case C-509/23, Laimz: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa – Latvia) – Laimz SIA v Izložu un azartspēļu uzraudzības inspekcija (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing – Directive (EU) 2015/849 – Point 11(a) of Article 3 – Close associate of a politically exposed person – Definition – Article 45(1) and (8) – Obliged entities that are part of a group – Information sharing within the group – Application of decisions taken by another obliged entity that is part of that group – Article 14(1) and (8) – Ongoing monitoring of customers by obliged entities – Article 11(d) – Enhanced customer due diligence measures for providers of gambling services)
Date: 2025-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, family relationship, financial transaction, game of chance, group of companies, money laundering, political figure, terrorism financing








C_202504246EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4246


11.8.2025






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa – Latvia) – ‘Laimz’ SIA v Izložu un azartspēļu uzraudzības inspekcija


(Case C-509/23,
                (1)
Laimz)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Directive (EU) 2015/849 - Point 11(a) of Article 3 - Close associate of a politically exposed person - Definition - Article 45(1) and (8) - Obliged entities that are part of a group - Information sharing within the group - Application of decisions taken by another obliged entity that is part of that group - Article 14(1) and (8) - Ongoing monitoring of customers by obliged entities - Article 11(d) - Enhanced customer due diligence measures for providers of gambling services)
(C/2025/4246)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:
            ‘Laimz’ SIA

Defendant: Izložu un azartspēļu uzraudzības inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Point 11(a) of Article 3 of 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, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018,
must be interpreted as meaning that an individual cannot be regarded as being a close associate of a politically exposed person solely on the ground that both persons are members of the executive body of the same association, but that situation nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance to be taken into account in that assessment.










2.


Article 45(1) and (8) of Directive 2015/849, as amended by Directive 2018/843,
must be interpreted as meaning that Member States must allow the obliged entities referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 2015/849, as amended, which are part of the same group, within the meaning of point 15 of Article 3 of Directive 2015/849, as amended, to share information with each other. However, such an exchange of information does not absolve the obliged entity of its responsibility to carry out customer due diligence.










3.


Article 45(1) and (8) of Directive 2015/849, as amended by Directive 2018/843, read in conjunction with points 12 and 15 of Article 3 of Directive 2015/849, as amended,
must be interpreted as precluding an obliged entity which is part of a group to apply automatically a decision taken by a person who holds a senior management position in another undertaking in the same group, in the context of its due diligence obligation concerning due diligence measures in respect of one of the customers of that undertaking, without carrying out its own assessment of the risks and due diligence measures to be taken.










4.


Article 14(5) of Directive 2015/849, as amended by Directive 2018/843, read in conjunction with Article 8(2) of Directive 2015/849, as amended,
must be interpreted as meaning that an obliged entity is not under an obligation to apply due diligence measures to existing customers for as long as the time limit laid down by national legislation and the time limit imposed by the internal control procedures for the application of new due diligence measures have not expired and as long as the obliged entity in question is not aware of other new circumstances that may have an impact on the risk assessment of the customer concerned, provided that the fact that no such new circumstances have been identified is not due to deficiencies in the continuous monitoring provided for in Article 13(1)(d) of Directive 2015/849, as amended, which that entity must carry out.










5.


Article 11(d) of Directive 2015/849, as amended by Directive 2018/843,
must be interpreted as requiring obliged entities to apply customer due diligence measures each time that, upon the collection of winnings, the wagering of a stake, or both, the transaction concerned amounts to EUR 2 000 or more, irrespective of whether that transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked.






(1)  OJ C, C/312/2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4246/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)