COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law
Date: 2026-06-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European security, fight against crime, financial transaction, international criminal law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, money laundering, organised crime, penalty, terrorism

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.6.2026  SWD(2026) 148 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION      Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law       {COM(2026) 277 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

1.1 

1.2 

General introduction ........................................................................................... 3 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation .................................................................. 3 

1.3  Methodology of the evaluation ........................................................................... 4 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ............. 5 

Description of the main elements and objectives of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 

2.1 
on combating money laundering by criminal law .......................................................... 5 

3.  HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  EVALUATION 

PERIOD? ..................................................................................................................... 8 

3.1 Transposition ............................................................................................................ 8 

3.2 Other developments in the field ................................................................................ 8 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ............................................... 9 

4.1.  TO  WHAT  EXTENT  WAS  THE  INTERVENTION  SUCCESSFUL  AND 

WHY? .......................................................................................................................... 9 

4.1.1 Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 9 

4.1.2. Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 23 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO 

WHOM? .................................................................................................................... 29 

4.2.1 EU added value ................................................................................................ 29 

4.2.2. Fundamental rights and freedoms ................................................................... 30 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? .................................................... 34 

4.3.1. Current and future threats and needs concerning the development of organised 
crime, particularly focusing on evolving money laundering activities ..................... 34 

4.3.2. Remaining obstacles/legal and practical issues in the fight against money 
laundering .................................................................................................................. 34 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ....................... 35 

ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................. 38 

1. Lead DG .................................................................................................................... 38 

2. Organisation and timing............................................................................................ 38 

3. Evidence, sources and quality ................................................................................... 38 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ....................... 39 

1.  Methods and sources ............................................................................................ 39 

 
 
 
 
2.  Known limitations ................................................................................................ 39 

3.  Process description ............................................................................................... 41 

3.1. 

Stakeholder consultation .............................................................................. 43 

3.2.  Data analysis techniques and tools ............................................................... 43 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ........................................................................... 44 

1.  Evaluation matrix ................................................................................................. 44 

2.  Effectiveness......................................................................................................... 45 

3.  Efficiency ............................................................................................................. 53 

4.  Relevance ............................................................................................................. 56 

5.  Coherence ............................................................................................................. 59 

6.  EU added value..................................................................................................... 60 

7.  Fundamental rights ............................................................................................... 61 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ................................................ 64 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ................. 66 

Desk research ................................................................................................................ 66 

Discovery interviews .................................................................................................... 66 

Ad hoc interviews: ........................................................................................................ 67 

Interviews (and written contributions) for case studies ................................................ 67 

Online surveys .............................................................................................................. 68 

Participation in meetings and workshops ..................................................................... 69 

Tertiary experts ............................................................................................................. 69 

Results of the stakeholder consultation activities ......................................................... 69 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

The Directive   

Warsaw Convention 

Directive (EU) 2018/1673 on combating money laundering by 
criminal law  

Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and 
Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of 
Terrorism (CETS No 198)     

AML 

AROs   

CEPOL   

CMLD   

DG HOME   

EMPACT   

Eurojust   

Europol   

EJTN   

EPPO   

FATF   

FIUs   

FRA   

INTERPOL 

LEAs   

Moneyval   

TFEU   

UNODC   

Anti-money laundering 

Asset Recovery Offices   

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training   

Directive (EU) 2018/1673 on the criminalisation of money 
laundering   

Directorate-General Migration and Home Affairs of the European 
Commission   

European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats   

European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation   

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation   

European Judicial Training Network  

European Public Prosecutor’s Office   

Financial Action Task Force   

Financial Intelligence Units   

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights   

International Criminal Police Organisation   

Law enforcement agencies   

Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money 
Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism    

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union    

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime    

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 General introduction1 

Combating  money  laundering  is  essential  for  addressing  the  threats  posed  by  organised 
crime networks, including their infiltration of the legal economy and the risks they create 
for  public  security.  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  combating  money  laundering  through 
criminal  law  (‘the CMLD’  or  ‘the Directive’) was adopted by the European Parliament 
and  the  Council  on  23  October  20182.  The  Directive  strengthens  law  enforcement  and 
judicial responses to money laundering, fosters cross-border cooperation both within the 
EU and internationally, and complements the legislative framework on the prevention of 
money laundering.  

The  Directive  establishes  minimum  rules  on  the  definition  of  criminal  offences  in  the 
field of money laundering and ensures that illicit proceeds from a broad range of criminal 
activities can be effectively addressed by specifying the criminal activities that constitute 
‘predicate offences’ for money laundering, i.e. the criminal acts from which the laundered 
property originated.  

Furthermore, it lays down provisions on penalties and sanctions applicable to both natural 
and legal persons, as well as rules on freezing and confiscation, jurisdiction, and the use 
of certain investigative tools against money laundering. 

The  deadline  for  transposition  was  3  December  2020.  The  Directive  applies  in  25 
Member States; Ireland and Denmark are not bound by it. 

1.2 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

Article 14(2) of the Directive requires the European Commission to submit a report to the 
European Parliament and the Council to assess the Directive’s added value and its impact 
on fundamental rights and freedoms. 

This evaluation presents evidence on the legislative and practical implementation of the 
Directive  and  its  effects  on  fundamental  rights.  This  includes  a  description  of  the 
implementation process (see Chapter 3) as well as an analysis in terms of effectiveness, 
efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU-added  value  in  line  with  the  rules  for  Better 
regulation3.  In  this  context,  this  evaluation  draws  a  number  of  conclusions  and  makes 
concrete recommendations for future action.     

1 It should be noted that this SWD is an informative supporting document accompanying the act; it has no 

legal effect and cannot commit the European Commission. 

2    Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2018  on 

combating money laundering by criminal law, OJ L 284, 12.11.2018, p. 22-30, available here. 

3  Available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-evaluation-fitness-

checks.pdf 

3 

 
 
 
 
The temporal scope of this report covers the period from 2018 to 2025 and all Member 
States bound by the Directive, that is all except Ireland and Denmark, which have opted 
out of its adoption. 

1.3 Methodology of the evaluation 

In  support  of  the  evaluation,  an  external  study4  was  carried  out,  guided  by  the  Better 
Regulation  Guidelines.  The  study  assessed  the  Directive  against  the  five  evaluation 
criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value) as well as 
its  impact  on  fundamental  rights  in  the  context  of  criminal  proceedings.  The  study 
applied  the  intervention  logic  and  an  evaluation  matrix  (see  Annex  II)  to  structure  data 
collection, guide analysis, and support conclusions and recommendations. 

Evidence was collected through six complementary activities carried out under the close 
supervision  of  DG  Migration  and  Home  Affairs:  desk  research,  interviews,  targeted 
consultations (surveys and interviews), statistical data collection, case studies and expert 
workshops.  

The study placed particular emphasis on stakeholder perspectives. Extensive surveys and 
interviews were conducted between late 2023 and early 2024, allowing for insights into 
the Directive’s implementation.  

The external study also produced a total of three case studies (i) on crypto-asset financial 
investigations; (ii) on the stand-alone money-laundering offence and (iii) on information 
exchange and cooperation between a Member State and a third country. The purpose of 
these  case  studies  was  to  obtain  a  deeper  view  on  the  practical  impact  of  the  Directive 
within Member States.  

The  study  acknowledges  certain  limitations  in  relation  to  stakeholder  engagement  and 
availability of data given the short period since the transposition of the Directive. Many 
money laundering cases, particularly those involving newer forms such as stand-alone or 
self-laundering,  often  take  several  years  to  reach  final  adjudication,  especially  when 
appealed  to  higher  courts.  In  an  effort  to  compensate  for  these  limitations,  the  study 
provided  alternative  engagement  options,  such  as  bilateral  consultations  or  focus  group 
discussions, to gather opinions and views that would still give insights into the practical 
application of the Directive on the ground. 

Notwithstanding the limitations, the adopted methodology provided a sufficiently robust 
evidence  base  for  assessing  the  Directive’s  performance,  identifying  shortcomings  and 
proposing  recommendations  for  possible  future  revision.  A  detailed  description  of  the 
methodology and analytical tools is set out in Annex I. 

4  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by  criminal  law.  Final 
Report. ISBN 978-92-68-37245-6 (Print version) - ISBN 978-92-68-37240-1 (PDF) 

4 

 
 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description  of  the  main  elements  and  objectives  of  Directive  (EU) 

2018/1673 on combating money laundering by criminal law 

Annex II shows the intervention logic of the Directive in full detail. 

As emphasised in  recital 1 of the Directive, money laundering poses  a serious threat  to 
the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and to the internal market, as 
well as to the security of people in the EU. There was therefore a need to strengthen the 
EU’s legal framework to effectively combat money laundering by criminal law (need 1). 

The lack of harmonisation in the definition of money laundering offences and predicate 
offences limited the effectiveness of measures at the time. There was therefore a need to 
ensure consistent and uniform definitions across the EU (need 2). 

The absence of proportionate and consistent penalties and sanctions for money laundering 
offences  across  Member  States  further  hindered  effective  enforcement.  There  was 
therefore  a  need  to  establish  minimum  rules  across  the  EU  on  penalties  and  sanctions 
(need 3). 

5 

 
 
 
Finally, the evolving nature of organised crime, including new forms of criminal activity 
and modi operandi such as self-laundering, called for a reinforced and future-proof legal 
framework (need 4). 

To address these needs, the Directive sought to provide a common EU-wide framework 
for  the  criminalisation  of  money  laundering  and  the  strengthening  of  judicial  and  law 
enforcement  responses.  The  Directive’s  general  objective  is  to  reinforce  the  EU’s  anti-
money laundering regime through criminal law. More specifically, the Directive had the 
following objectives: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ensuring  the  effective  criminalisation  of  money  laundering  offences  across  the 
EU; 

introducing clear and uniform definitions of predicate offences; 

establishing consistent and proportionate penalties and sanctions;  

enhancing cooperation and information exchange between Member States. 

The expected impacts of the Directive were: 

•  more  effective  investigation  and  prosecution  of  money  laundering  perpetrators, 

through the adoption of harmonised offences, penalties and sanctions; 

• 

increased protection of people in the EU and of the internal market against threats 
of  organised  crime  and  terrorist  financing,  through  the  availability  of  effective 
tools  for  authorities  to  investigate  money  laundering  and  bring  perpetrators, 
including legal entities, to justice;  

•  more  efficient  and  coordinated  cross-border  action  against  money  laundering, 
through  strengthened  cooperation  and  information  exchange  between  Member 
States; 

•  more  effective  investigative  tools  available  to  authorities  in  money  laundering 

investigations; 

• 

strengthened confiscation measures. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Directive  is  being  applied  in  a  context  where  external  factors 
continue  to  increase  the  threat  from  money  laundering  to  Europe’s  security  and  to  the 
integrity of the financial system. Criminal groups are continuously evolving in terms of 
their  modi  operandi  and  using  new  technologies,  including  those  emerging  in  the 
financial  sector.  The  Directive’s  application  further  coincides  with  other  regulatory 
developments  at  EU  level  in  the  fight  against  money  laundering,  with  the  2024  Anti-
Money Laundering Package and the Directive on asset recovery and confiscation, which 
was also adopted in 2024, presenting significant novelties of relevance for this analysis. 

6 

 
 
  2.2   Point(s) of comparison  

To reconstruct the baseline scenario and the point of comparison, this evaluation takes as 
its  point  of  departure  the  EU  legislative  framework  addressing  the  threat  from  money 
laundering activities which existed at the time of the Directive’s adoption.   

The  main  EU  instrument  against  money  laundering  back  in  2018  was  the  Fifth  Anti-
Money Laundering Directive5, which established measures to prevent money laundering. 
On the repressive side, the main rules to facilitate the prosecution of this offence were set 
out  in  Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA  on  money  laundering,  the  identification, 
tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime6. 
However,  this  instrument  was  limited  in  scope  and  did  not  ensure  a  comprehensive 
criminalisation of money-laundering offences. Although all Member States criminalised 
money laundering, significant differences existed. These  differences concerned first and 
foremost  the  respective  definitions  of  what  constitutes  money  laundering,  the  predicate 
offences, as well as the level of sanctions. The former legislative framework, before the 
2018 Directive, was neither comprehensive nor sufficiently coherent to be fully effective. 

This situation had clear operational consequences. Differences in national laws hindered 
cross-border  police  and  judicial  cooperation  and  complicated  information  exchange 
between  Financial  Intelligence  Units  (FIUs).  Practitioners  and  EU  agencies  such  as 
Europol  and  Eurojust  reported  that  these  inconsistencies  reduced  the  effectiveness  of 
investigations  and  prosecutions,  particularly  in  cases  involving  cross-border  money 
laundering and links to terrorist financing7. 

At  the  same  time,  the  scale  of  the  problem  was  substantial.  Criminal  proceeds  were 
estimated at  around  EUR  110 billion annually in  the EU, while only  a  small  share was 
recovered.  Terrorist  groups  increasingly  relied  on  criminal  activities  and  money 
laundering schemes to finance their operations8. Without intervention, these trends were 
expected to continue, reinforcing organised crime and increasing security risks. 

The pre-intervention situation therefore constitutes the main point of comparison for the 
assessment.  The  intervention  will  be  evaluated  against  this  baseline  by  examining 
changes  in  the  level  of  legal  harmonisation,  the  effectiveness  of  investigations,  cross-
border cooperation and the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions. 

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,  5.6.2015,  pp.  73–117, 
at:  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/849/oj/eng   

available 

6 Council Framework Decision of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, 
seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime, OJ L 182, 05.07.2001, p. 1-2, 
available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/nl/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001F0500  

7  See  explanatory  memorandum  of  the  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on countering money laundering by criminal law, COM/2016/0826 final - 2016/0414 (COD) 

8 Ibid. 

7 

 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1 Transposition 

The deadline for Member States to  formally  incorporate Directive (EU) 2018/1673  into 
their  national  laws  was  December  2020.  Only  nine  Member  States  had  transposed  the 
Directive  by  this  deadline9.  The  degree  of  the  delay  in  transposition  for  the  remaining 
Member States varied to a great extent.  

Most  Member  States  adopted  specific  legislation  to  transpose  the  Directive.  There  was 
only  a  handful  of  Member  States,  that  considered  the  pre-existing  legislation  (largely) 
sufficient to transpose the Directive10. Where legislation was adopted for transposing the 
Directive, this was primarily done via amendments to the Criminal Code and, to a lesser 
extent, to the Code of Criminal Procedure or other, more specific, legislation.  

In  its  transposition  report  the  Commission  acknowledges  the  efforts  made  by  Member 
States to take comprehensive measures to transpose the Directive and align national laws 
with EU standards. However, some gaps and inconsistencies were detected and detailed 
in the report. 

3.2 Other developments in the field 

In  parallel  with  the  application  of  the  Directive,  important  changes  have  taken  place  in 
criminal  practices,  in  technological  advancements  and  in  the  overall  regulatory 
framework. 

In  recent  years,  money  laundering  practices  have  undergone  significant  developments. 
Criminals take advantage of the possibilities offered by technological innovation and the 
rise  of  the  digital  economy,  combining  them  with  traditional  money  laundering 
techniques11. 

Crypto-assets have opened new avenues for illicit financial flows, creating challenges for 
both regulators and law enforcement authorities. Europol observes that crypto-assets are 
increasingly misused for money laundering and terrorist financing12. 

The constantly evolving techniques of money launderers, such as the use of decentralised 
finance  (DeFi)  platforms,  crypto-asset  mixers,  but  also  the  misuse  of  cash,  high-value 
goods or traditional informal value transfer systems (such as  hawala13) and the criminal 

9 Czechia, Estonia, France, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden. 
10 France, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden. 
11  Europol,  European  Union  Serious  and  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment  –  The  changing  DNA  of 

serious and organised crime, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025. 

12 See Europol, European Union Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment – The changing DNA of 
serious and organised crime, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025; Europol, 
European  Union  Terrorism  Situation  and  Trend  Report,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2025. 

13 Hawala is an informal, trust-based money-transfer system often used for money remittances. It operates 

outside traditional banking, without using authorised financial institutions. 

8 

 
 
infiltration  into  the  legal  economy,  continue  to  pose  significant  and  sometimes  novel 
risks. 

At the same time, authorities across the EU and globally have intensified efforts to curb 
money laundering and tackle criminal finances. Measures taken after the adoption of the 
Directive  include  establishing  new  supervisory  frameworks14,  such  as  through  the 
creation  of  an  EU  Anti-Money  Laundering  Authority,  and  the  strengthening  of  the 
legislation  on  the  prevention  of  money  laundering15,  asset  recovery16,  regulation  of  the 
crypto-asset sector17, or access of law enforcement to financial information18. There are 
also  efforts  to  (i)  establish  specialised  investigative  units  in  different  Member  States 
focused on financial  crime;  (ii)  foster closer cooperation between  Financial  Intelligence 
Units  (FIUs)19  as  well  as  between  the  public  and  private  sector20;  or  (iii)  strengthen 
cooperation  with  third  countries  in  the  fight  against  money  laundering.  Effectively,  the 
changing modi operandi of criminal networks underline the need for sustained vigilance 
and coordinated actions between all stakeholders involved. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

4.1.1 Effectiveness 

Main findings: 

•  The  Directive  has  made  progress  in  providing  a  comprehensive  and  harmonised  legal 
framework,  ensuring  a  closer  alignment  of  predicate  offences.  However,  issues  remain, 
particularly  in  relation  to  the  definition  of  property,  the  interpretation  of  the  stand-alone  money 
laundering, and sanctions for legal persons. 

14 In particular, the EU created the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of 
Terrorism, on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 31 May 2024 establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing 
of  Terrorism,  OJ  L,  2024/1620,  19.6.2024.  AMLA  will  also  support  closer  cooperation  among 
Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). 

15  See  in  particular  the  EU’s  ‘Anti-Money  Laundering  Package’  adopted  in  2024,  including  Regulation 
(EU) 2024/1624 of 31 May 2024 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes 
of money laundering or terrorist financing, OJ L, 2024/1624, 19.6.2024, and Directive (EU) 2015/849 
of  20  May  2015  on  the  prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money 
laundering or terrorist financing, OJ L 141, 5.6.2015. 

16 See in particular Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of 24 April 2024 on asset recovery and confiscation, OJ L, 
2024/1260,  2.5.2024.  This  Directive  also  introduces  the  obligation  to  conduct  parallel  financial 
investigations into organised crime cases. 

17  See  in  particular  Regulation  (EU)  2023/1114  of  31  May  2023  on  markets  in  crypto-assets,  OJ  L  150, 
9.6.2023, and Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 of 31 May 2023 on information accompanying transfers of 
funds and certain crypto-assets, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, pp. 1–3. 

18 See Directive (EU) 2024/1654 of 31 May 2024 amending Directive (EU) 2019/1153 as regards access by 
competent  authorities  to  centralised  bank  account  registries  through  the  interconnection  system  and 
technical measures to facilitate the use of transaction records, OJ L, 2024/1654, 19.6.2024. 

19 At EU-level for example through the new EU Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the 

Financing of Terrorism, which started its operations in 2025.   

20  See  for  example  Europol  Financial  Intelligence  Public  Private  partnership  (EFIPPP),  EFIPPP  Practical 
Guide  for  Operational  Cooperation  between  Investigative  Authorities  and  Financial  Institutions, 
Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025. 

9 

 
 
 
• 

• 

In  regard  to  the  facilitation  of  investigation  and  prosecution  stakeholders  have  reported  both 
improvements  and  ongoing  challenges,  as  divergent  interpretations  and  applications  continue  to 
affect the Directive’s effectiveness.  
In  relation  to  the  prevention  of  money  laundering,  responses  varied:  some  stakeholders 
reported that the Directive made a significant contribution, while others noted a limited impact, as 
their national frameworks had already addressed money laundering. 

•  Responses generally suggest a moderate to high facilitation of cross-border cooperation. 

The evaluation looks at the extent to which the instrument delivers on its intended goals 
and  generates  the  expected  outcomes.  This  entails  examining  its  impact  on  the  key 
problems  it  seeks  to  address,  the  level  of  compliance  and  practical  implementation  by 
Member States, and the degree to which objectives are met.  

This  section  presents  how  the  Directive  has  brought  changes  into  Member  States’ 
systems  and  the  main  issues  that  hamper  the  effective  application  of  the  Directive.  It 
further presents  (i)  an assessment  of the  extent to which the  Directive has strengthened 
the capacity of authorities to investigate and prosecute money laundering across the EU 
and (ii) an analysis of the effectiveness of the optional provisions and of the impacts of 
the Directive on cross-border cooperation, mainly based on stakeholders’ views. 

4.1.1.1  Comprehensive  and  harmonised  legal  framework  on  the  criminalisation  of 
money laundering, including money laundering offences and penalties 

The evaluation aims to answer the question of whether the Directive’s goals of ensuring a 
sufficient  degree  of  harmonisation  of  money  laundering  offences  and  related  penalties 
have  been  achieved.  In  this  regard,  the  evaluation  finds  that  the  Directive  has  achieved 
progress in providing for a comprehensive and harmonised legal framework on money 
laundering, including its offences and related penalties across Member States.  

As  described  in  the  above  Section  3.1  on  transposition  and  in  the  transposition  report, 
most  Member  States  have  fully  transposed  with  the  Directive  and  included  similar 
definitions  of  offences  (including  self-laundering)  and  penalties  as  well  as  aggravating 
circumstances in their national legislation.  

Stakeholders  consulted  in  the  context  of  the  supporting  study  accompanying  the 
evaluation, including all the judicial authorities consulted, reported either a high or very 
high degree of alignment between their national legislation and the Directive’s provisions 
on  offences  and  penalties.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  a  number  of  national  frameworks  were 
already in line with international standards reflected in the Directive (a point also raised 
by criminal  law practitioners and one international  organisation), in  particular regarding 
the ‘standard’ money-laundering offence, i.e. transferring or converting property derived 
from  criminal  activity, hiding  or  disguising  its  illicit  origin,  or acquiring,  possessing  or 
using  property knowing  of  its criminal  origin21.  Despite  this,  the  Directive  still  led  to 
further approximation, for instance, thanks to the introduction of new money laundering 

21  One  of  the  evaluation  questions  relates  to  the  extent  to  which  there  were  any  legislative  national 

measures already in place before the adoption of the Directive. 

10 

 
 
 
 
offences  and  the  clarification  of  aggravating  circumstances22.  There  was  also  an 
approximation in the level of penalties among Member States for these offences, with all 
Member States being conform with the thresholds set out in the Directive (a maximum of 
at  least  four  years  for  the  standard  money  laundering  offences  as  well  as  for  self-
laundering). Members of the EMPACT community have indicated the deterrent effect of 
the national laws transposing the Directive, including with regard to penalties, according 
to the consultation carried out by the external study supporting the evaluation. 

The transposition of the Directive also ensured a closer alignment of predicate offences, 
in line with the approach in the Directive which defines the concept of ‘criminal activity’ 
(Article 2). This definition sets a minimum threshold (offences with a maximum penalty 
of  imprisonment  of  at  least  one  year),  while  enumerating  a  list  of  categories  of  serious 
offences which should, as a minimum, be considered predicate offences (e.g. eurocrimes23 
such as drug trafficking or trafficking in human beings but also other categories of crime 
such as robbery, forgery etc.). Stakeholders consulted – notably academics and criminal 
law practitioners – have underlined that while some Member States have opted for an all-
crimes  approach,  others  have  included  a  list  of  crimes  in  their  legislation.  This  still 
implies  a  high  level  of  harmonisation  and,  by  ensuring  that  a  wide  range  of  criminal 
activities is considered predicate offences, it facilitates the investigation and prosecution 
of money laundering. 

This means not only that there is alignment among Member States’ provisions, but also 
that authorities across the EU can now count on having a comprehensive set of tools to 
respond more effectively to the various acts that constitute money laundering, through a 
sufficiently broad definition of the money laundering offence, a comprehensive scope of 
predicate offences and through sufficiently dissuasive penalties.  

Nonetheless,  certain  issues  may  still  warrant  closer  attention  to  ensure  a  common 
understanding and a more consistent approach in practice. This will be discussed below. 

-  Definition  of  ‘property’  and  the  interpretation  of  the  concept  of  property  in  the 

context of money laundering (Article 2)  

Article 2(2) of the CMLD Directive defines ‘property’ as including ‘assets of any kind, 
whether  corporeal  or  incorporeal,  movable  or  immovable,  tangible  or  intangible,  and 
legal  documents  or  instruments  in  any  form,  including  electronic  or  digital,  evidencing 
title to, or an interest in, such assets’. While the definition of property in the Directive is, 
in  principle,  very  broad,  the  Commission  was  made  aware  in  exchanges  with  national 

22  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, pages 32-25. 

23  According  to  Art.  83  TFEU,  eurocrimes  are  particularly  serious  crimes  with  a  cross-border  dimension 
resulting  from  the  nature  or  impact  of  such  offenses  or  from  a  special  need  to  combat  them  on  a 
common basis. They are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation 
of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, 
counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime. 

11 

 
 
 
practitioners  as  well  as  with  EU  authorities  that  some  Member  States  apply  a  more 
limited  interpretation  and  exclude  saved  expenses  (such  as  taxes  withheld  through 
committing a tax crime) from the scope of ‘property’ that can be the object of a money 
laundering  offence.  During  the  consultation  with  stakeholders,  one  EU  body  also 
highlighted  this  issue,  stressing  that  this  limitation  can  have  consequences  for  offences 
such as VAT and customs fraud, which can involve hundreds of millions of euro24.  

Although saved expenses (such as taxes withheld through committing a tax crime) are not 
explicitly mentioned, the Directive’s recitals (13 and 16) clarify that no distinction should 
be  made  between  property  derived  directly  from  criminal  activity  and  that  derived 
indirectly.  

-  Harmonised implementation, interpretation and application of stand-alone money 

laundering (Article 3(3)(a)(b)) 

A  major  step  taken  by  the  Directive  was  the  introduction  of  provisions  on  stand-alone 
money laundering. This enables authorities to prosecute and convict a person for money 
laundering without requiring a prior conviction for the underlying predicate offence that 
generated the property to be laundered. The intention was to eliminate legal and practical 
barriers  to  investigations  and  prosecutions,  given  that  it  is  often  difficult  to  prove  a 
predicate offence from which the perpetrator is often distant in time and space.  

At  the  same  time,  the  transposition  checks  and  consultations  with  stakeholders  (e.g. 
during  bilateral  meetings  with  prosecutors  or  during  the  second  Eurojust  meeting  on 
money  laundering  and  asset  recovery)25  as  well  as  case  work  carried  out  by  Eurojust26 
revealed that, although Member States did incorporate stand-alone money laundering into 
their  national  legislation,  the  interpretation  of  this  offence  still  varies  considerably, 
particularly as regards the extent to which the predicate offence must be proven27. As a 
result, in some Member States it is relatively simple to prosecute and convict for stand-
alone money laundering, whereas in others the evidentiary threshold for proving the illicit 
origin of the laundered property remains so high that the situation differs little from the 
one that existed before the Directive entered into force28. Therefore, there are significant 
differences  in  the  extent  to  which  the  provision  for  stand-alone  money  laundering  has 
been  effectively  applied  in  practice,  depending  on  the  way  in  which  Member  States 
transposed  the  Directive.  Several  national  courts  require  a  high  level  of  proof  that  a 

24  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 33. 

25https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/news/eurojust-leads-efforts-step-judicial-response-money-laundering-

and-asset-recovery 
(2022), 

26Eurojust 

8 
https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/publication/eurojust-report-money-laundering 

Money-Laundering, 

Report 

on 

p. 

available 

here: 

27  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 27. 

28 Ibid. 

12 

 
 
specific  predicate  offence  took  place,  which  makes  prosecution  particularly  difficult  in 
complex or cross-border cases29. 

In  principle,  this  is  not  an  issue  of  transposition,  as  the  Directive’s  wording  allows  for 
such divergent interpretations: the Directive only requires that money laundering should 
be  punishable  even  in  the  absence  of  a  conviction  and  that  not  all  elements  of  the 
predicate  offence  have  to  be  proven.  As  such  the  Directive,  while  taking  an  important 
step  forward  in  creating  a  more  uniform  legal  framework,  left  a  lot  of  room  for 
interpretation  during  transposition  and  practical  application.  This  continues  to  create 
difficulties for effective cross-border law enforcement and weakens harmonisation across 
the  EU.  The  effects  on  investigations  for  practitioners  are  further  elaborated  under 
Section 4.1.1.3. 

-  Harmonised  implementation,  interpretation  and  application  of  self-laundering 

(Article 3(5)) 

Article  3(5)  of  the  Directive  introduces  the  concept  of  self-laundering,  enabling  the 
prosecution  of  money  laundering  even  in  cases  where  the  perpetrator  of  the  predicate 
offence also laundered the money derived from  the offence – something which was not 
possible  in  many  Member  States  before  the  Directive.  With  the  application  of  the 
Directive, it is  now possible for  authorities to  prosecute self-laundering,  at  least  for the 
cases of conversion, transfer, concealment or disguise of the property (Article 3(1)(a) and 
(b) of the Directive). For the cases of acquisition possession and use  (Article 3(1)(c) of 
the  Directive)  it  was  left  for  Member  States  to  decide  if  self-laundering  should  be 
criminalised.  

Overall,  this  has  led  to  an  approximation  of  Member  States’  laws  in  this  area,  with  a 
number  of  differences  among  Member  States.  Some  have  an  extensive  scope  of  self-
laundering, comprising acquisition, possession and use. Others do not, even introducing 
additional  requirements,  for  example,  that  self-laundering  can  only  be  punishable  if  the 
laundered property is brought into circulation. These differences derive not only from the 
optional  nature of self-laundering for the  offences of acquisition, possession and use  as 
regulated in Article 3(1)(c) but also from the indications of flexibility that the Directive 
provides in this area as per recital 1130. Therefore, it is worth continuing the analysis of 
the  concrete  application  of  self-laundering  in  the  long-term,  to  understand  whether  the 
differences could create any problem in practice, in particular with respect to cross-border 
cooperation.  Another  aspect  to  further  monitor  and  assess  is  the  effect  on  the  right  to 
defence  (regarding  the  effect  on  fundamental  rights,  see  more  details  below  in  Section 

29  See  also  Eurojust  (2022),  Report  on  Money-Laundering,  p.8  ‘This  has  an impact on  international 
cooperation,  as  prosecutors  from  these  countries  are  more  reluctant  to  start  money  laundering 
investigations’.   

30  Recital  11  states  that  money  laundering  should  at  least  be  punishable  “where,  the  money  laundering 
activity  does  not  simply  amount  to  the  mere  possession  or  use  of  property,  but  also  involves  the 
transfer,  conversion,  concealment  or  disguise  of  property  and  results  in  further  damage  than  that 
already  caused  by  the  criminal  activity,  for  instance  by  putting  the  property  derived  from  criminal 
activity into circulation and, by doing so, concealing its unlawful origin”. 

13 

 
 
4.2.2.). The judicial and law enforcement authorities consulted underscore the important 
role  of  self-laundering  laws  in  combating  financial  crimes.  The  range  of  behaviours 
constituting  self-laundering  has  been  expanded,  enhancing  prosecutorial  reach.  The 
criminal-law  practitioners  consulted  confirm  that  self-laundering  is  punishable  in  their 
jurisdictions,  with  most  stating  that  self-laundering  offences  also  cover  the  mere 
acquisition, possession, or use of illicit property. According to these stakeholders, this has 
facilitated  an  increase  in  international  cooperation  requests,  facilitating  cross-border 
investigations and prosecutions.  

However, they also note several challenges that can complicate the effective application 
of these provisions, such as the difficulties associated with differentiating self-laundering 
from  the  predicate  offence,  or  with  ensuring  consistency  when  initiating  investigations 
for both the underlying and laundering offences.   

-  Penalties for natural persons (Article 5) 

Article  5  introduces  harmonised  penalties  for  natural  persons,  notably  by  requiring  a 
maximum threshold of at least four years imprisonment for intentional money laundering 
and self-laundering. This represents a step forward compared to the previous framework. 
However,  Article  5(3)  allows  for  additional,  unspecified  sanctions,  leaving  scope  for 
variation across Member States. While this flexibility does not fundamentally undermine 
the Directive’s objectives, desk research conducted for the supporting study showed that 
it may affect uniformity31. This may limit the deterrent potential of sanctions to the extent 
that it may provide fewer tools for sanctioning perpetrators than for other crimes recently 
regulated at EU level (see section on coherence).  

-  Aggravating circumstances (Article 6) 

Article  6  sets  out  a  number  of  situations  which  Member  States  must  consider  as 
aggravating  circumstances,  making  it  possible  to  impose  harsher  punishments  for  such 
conducts: money laundering activities committed within a criminal organisation, as well 
as  cases  where  obliged  entities  commit  money  laundering  in  the  course  of  professional 
activities.  The  study  supporting  the  evaluation  showed  that  applying  the  aggravating 
circumstance  of  committing  money  laundering  as  an  obliged  entity  is  complex,  as  it 
requires precise determination of professional conduct32. 

Moreover, the Directive provides for optional aggravating circumstances, which Member 
States may decide to apply, i.e. for cases where the laundered property is of high value or 
when  it  derives  from  ‘more  serious’  offences,  such  as  drug  trafficking.  The  Directive 
excludes  from  this  aggravating  category  offences  such  as  fraud,  environmental  crime, 
market abuse, and cybercrime, despite being listed under Article 83(1) TFEU as crimes of 

31  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 29. 

32  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 30. 

14 

 
 
 
particular  seriousness  with  a  cross-border  dimension.  Although  Member  States  may 
broaden  aggravating  circumstances  nationally,  such  discretion  presents  some  risks  of 
divergent interpretation, reduced consistency, and weakened EU-wide deterrence. 

-  Harmonised application of penalties to legal entities (Article 8) 

The  Directive  foresees  that  fines  are  mandatorily  made  available  under  national  law  as 
well  as  optional  additional  sanctions  for  legal  persons  (e.g.  exclusion  from  public 
benefits,  bans  on  commercial  activities)  and  leaves  Member  States  the  choice  between 
criminal, administrative, or civil liability. This reflects national differences on corporate 
criminal liability but risks uneven enforcement. 

Although  fines  are  mandatory,  the  Directive  grants  wide  discretion  as  to  their  level, 
unlike  newer  EU  criminal  law  instruments  which  prescribe  the  minimum  maximum 
levels  of  fines  to  be  calculated  either  based  on  percentages  of  the  legal  person’s  total 
worldwide turnover or on fixed amounts. Likewise, while the Directive makes additional 
sanctions optional, more recent instruments foresee them as mandatory, while providing a 
non-binding  list  of  such  other  criminal  and  non-criminal  penalties  or  measures.  Such 
flexibility  may  result  in  unequal  treatment  of  comparable  cases  (see  section  on 
coherence). 

-  Strengthen confiscation measures (Article 9) 

The  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  take  measures  to  ensure  that  their  competent 
authorities  freeze  or  confiscate  the  proceeds  derived  from  money  laundering,  in 
accordance with Directive 2014/42/EU (hereinafter ‘the Confiscation Directive’). 

The  evaluation  assesses  the  impact  of  the  Directive  regarding  confiscation  of  property 
deriving from activities of a criminal nature, including in the absence of a conviction, and 
the  key  obstacles  for  implementing  such  confiscation  measures.  Nevertheless,  the 
assessment  on  the  impact  of  the  Directive  with  regard  to  confiscation  has  posed 
significant challenges. 

First,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Directive  2014  already  covered  money  laundering 
offences  through  references  to  the  Council  Framework  Decision  on  money  laundering 
from 2001. The Directive criminalising money laundering only expanded these existing 
confiscation  measures  to  the  newly  introduced  money  laundering  offences  (e.g.  the 
offence  of  self-laundering).  Therefore,  the  practical  impact  of  the  provision  on 
confiscation  is  difficult  to  assess.  Secondly,  such  practical  impact  would  need  to  be 
analysed  over  a  longer  period,  considering  the  length  of  criminal  and  confiscation 
proceedings. Third, the confiscation regime in the EU has been significantly reinforced in 
the  meantime,  with  the  2024  Directive  on  asset  recovery  and  confiscation33  bringing  in 
new  possibilities,  notably  in  relation  to  non-conviction  based  confiscation.  Therefore, 

33  Directive  (EU)  2024/1260  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  April  2024  on  asset 

recovery and confiscation, OJ L, 2024/1260, 2.5.2024 

15 

 
 
such aspects can only be analysed as part of the evaluation of the latter instrument. The 
Commission is required to submit that evaluation to the European Parliament and to the 
Council by 24 November 2031. 

-  Jurisdiction (Article 10) 

Article  10  requires  Member  States  to  establish  jurisdiction  over  money  laundering 
offences  committed  on  their  territory  or  by  their  nationals,  and  allows  for  optional 
extension  of  jurisdiction  to  offences  committed  abroad  by  habitual  residents  or  for  the 
benefit of locally established legal persons, while providing that where multiple Member 
States  have  jurisdiction  over  the  same  facts,  they  shall  cooperate  –  involving  Eurojust 
where appropriate – to centralise proceedings in a single Member State. 
It should be noted that the provision concerning  the establishment of  jurisdiction over 
money laundering offences – specifically in the instance where the offender is a national 
of  the  Member  State,  pursuant  to  Article  10(1)(b)  –  was  transposed  in  a  divergent 
manner, particularly with respect to the requirement of double criminality34. 

4.1.1.2  Facilitating  investigation  and  prosecution  of  money  laundering  and  use  of 
investigative tools 

Among other things, the evaluation aims to establish the extent to which the application 
of the Directive has contributed to facilitating the investigation and prosecution of money 
laundering in the Member States and at EU level. Overall, Directive (EU) 2018/1673 has 
contributed  to  strengthening  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  money  laundering 
across  the  EU,  notably  thanks  to  the  introduction  of  the  stand-alone  money  laundering 
offence.  However,  its  implementation  has  produced  mixed  outcomes,  with  stakeholders 
reporting  both  improvements  and  ongoing  challenges  when  asked  if  the  Directive 
facilitated  their  investigations  into  money  laundering.  While  the  Directive  did 
approximate  national  legislation,  divergent  interpretations  and  applications  continue  to 
affect  its  overall  effectiveness.  This  section  examines  how  these  differences  influence 
investigations and prosecutions. 

As  indicated  above,  judicial  authorities  reported  uneven  effects  when  it  comes  to  the 
facilitation of investigations35. Some saw little change, as their national frameworks were 
already  largely  compliant  with  the  Directive’s  obligations.  Others  highlighted  clear 
benefits, particularly the removal of the need to prove intent behind the predicate offence, 
which  simplified  judicial  proceedings.  Law  enforcement  authorities,  including 
members  of  the  European  Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against  Criminal  Threats 
investigative  action  has  been 
(EMPACT)  community,  generally  reported 

that 

34  That  is  the  principle  whereby  jurisdiction  can  only  be  established  where  the  conduct  in  question  is 

criminalised both in the prosecuting state and in the state in which it was committed. 

35  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 37. 

16 

 
 
 
 
significantly  facilitated  following  legislative  alignment  with  the  Directive36.  Depending 
on the Member State, national reforms inspired by the Directive expanded investigative 
tools  and  introduced  the  criminalisation  of  self-laundering  and  of  negligent  money 
laundering,  the  possibility  to  investigate  laundering  independently  of  the  predicate 
offence,  and  clearer  definitions  of  criminal  proceeds.  Financial  Intelligence  Units 
(FIUs)  gave  mixed  feedback37:  while  some  noted  improved  analysis  and  cooperation, 
others observed limited change in daily practice (it should be noted that the FIUs’ work is 
governed  by  Directive  (EU)  2024/1640  (the  EU  Anti-Money  Laundering  Directive  - 
AMLD)38. 

-  The impact of stand-alone money laundering (money laundering without prior 
conviction  for  the  predicate  offence)  on  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of 
money laundering 

Feedback  from  judicial  and  law  enforcement  authorities,  including  EMPACT 
members, suggests that removing the requirement for a prior conviction, prosecution, or 
factual establishment of the predicate offence has generally  facilitated prosecutorial and 
investigative  work39.  National  authorities  highlighted  that  this  enabled  them  to  pursue 
money  laundering  independently,  even  where  the  perpetrator  of  the  predicate  offence 
could  not  be  identified,  prosecuted,  or  convicted.  The  change  also  removed  certain 
procedural  obstacles,  for example in  cases of tax-related laundering where prosecutions 
were previously blocked by the absence of a complaint from tax authorities. 

Nevertheless,  some  authorities  reported  limited  impacts,  often  because  national 
legislation had already provided equivalent tools. Opinions from NGOs, think tanks, and 
professional  associations  were  equally  diverse,  ranging  from  significant  facilitation  in 
securing convictions to minimal impact.  

At  the  same  time,  as  explained  in  Section  4.1.1.1.,  several  Member  States  continue  to 
require  an  identification  of  the  predicate  offence  to  establish  the  criminal  origin  of  the 
property, thereby maintaining high evidentiary standards for prosecutors40. Criminal law 
practitioners  and  one  EU  body  confirmed  this  picture,  noting  that  courts  in  many 
jurisdictions still expect prosecutors to prove the underlying offence41. 

Overall,  the  obligation  to  introduce  a  stand-alone  money  laundering  offence  has  had 
positive,  albeit  mixed  effects.  While  many  authorities  emphasised  that  it  facilitated 

36 Ibid. 
37 Ibid. 
38  Directive  (EU)  2024/1640  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  31  May  2024  on  the 
mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system 
for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive(EU) 2019/1937, and 
amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849. 

39  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 39. 

40 As further analysed in the transposition report. 
41  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 39. 

17 

 
 
investigations and prosecutions, others stressed that its potential remained limited by the 
high national threshold required to prove the criminal origin of assets. 

Figure 1: Level of facilitation of the investigation of money-laundering without prior 
conviction, prosecution or extensive factual establishment of the predicate offence42 

Level of facilitation of the investigation of money-laundering without prior 
conviction, prosecution or extensive factual establishment of the predicate offence 
(Judicial Authorities:7, LEAs: 13, NGOs: 2, Int.Org: 1)

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1: Very low
facilitation

2: Low
facilitation

3: Moderate
facilitation

4: High
facilitation

5: Very high
facilitation

Judicial authorities

LEAs

NGOs

Int Orgs

-  Use of investigative tools 

The Directive requires Member States to ensure that effective investigative tools used for 
cases  involving,  for  example,  organised  crime,  are  also  available  for  investigating  or 
prosecuting  money  laundering.  Law  enforcement  authorities  in  many  jurisdictions 
reported  that  the  Directive  strengthened  investigations  by  raising  maximum  penalties, 
thereby  enabling  access  to  specialised  tools  such  as  communication  interception  and 
enhancing  cross-border  cooperation.  Others  reported  limited  impact,  as  these  tools  had 
already been available under national law. 

Stakeholders such as  academics and professional  associations  expressed concerns about 
applying  investigative  powers  designed  for  organised  crime  to  all  money  laundering 
cases43,  warning that this could raise proportionality issues and risk diverting resources 
from the fight against organised crime. 

-  Effects of optional provisions on the effectiveness of the Directive 

42 JAs: judicial authorities; LEAs: law enforcement authorities; NGOs: non-governmental organisations.  
43  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 38. 

18 

 
 
  
 
The  evaluation  also  looked  into  whether  the  implementation  of  optional  provisions  had 
positive  effects  on  cross-border  cooperation  and  the  fight  against  money  laundering. 
Some of the optional provisions in the Directive, such as on negligent money laundering, 
under Article 3(2), or the possibilities for further aggravating circumstances e.g. enabling 
a  higher  penalty  if  the  money  laundering  relates  to  property  of  significant  value  or  to 
property  generated  through  a  specifically  serious  offence  (Article  6(2)(a)  and  (b)),  had 
some positive effects on the investigations. 

The  provisions  on  negligent  money  laundering  were  included  in  several  legal  systems, 
according  to  the  judicial  authorities  consulted.  These  provisions  are  widely  regarded  as 
highly effective across various stakeholder categories44 because intent does not have to be 
proven,  making  a  conviction  for  money  laundering  easier  to  achieve.  Members  of  the 
EMPACT  community  also  recognised  the  positive  effects  of  the  optional  aggravating 
circumstances45. 

The  optionality  of  certain  provisions  does  not  lead  to  a  harmonised  legal  framework; 
however, this does not seem to have an impact on the effectiveness of the Directive. In 
this  context,  some  stakeholders  supported  retaining  the  non-mandatory  nature  of  these 
provisions,  giving  Member  States  flexibility  to  implement  them  in  line  with  their 
respective legal traditions and constraints. Several legal experts and academics from the 
Expert Group on EU Criminal Policy explicitly referred to Article 3(2), commenting that 
negligence should only be used to protect important legal interests, such as life or bodily 
integrity,  and  is  not  appropriate  for  money  laundering46.  They  argued  that  money 
laundering, as a crime against the administration of justice, should always require a form 
of intent. 

4.1.1.3. Money Laundering prevention 

Stakeholders  offered  differing  assessments  regarding  the  deterrent  impact  of  Directive 
(EU) 2018/1673 on money laundering. 

Certain Judicial Authorities emphasised the significance of the Directive’s new criminal 
offences,  while  also  stressing  that  enhanced  international  cooperation  was  crucial  in 
reinforcing deterrence. Others, however, contended that their domestic legal frameworks 
had already addressed money laundering effectively before the Directive’s introduction. 
Law  Enforcement  Authorities  presented  similarly  varied  perspectives—some  identified 
Article  3(2)  and  (3)  as  particularly  effective  in  preventing  money  laundering,  whereas 

44  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, pages 45-46. 

45  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 46. 

46  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 45. 

19 

 
 
 
 
others either lacked sufficient evidence to evaluate its impact or asserted that pre-existing 
national laws already met the Directive’s standards.  

Financial  Intelligence  Units,  for  the  most  part,  observed  little  change  following 
implementation,  though  an  International  Organisation  highlighted  the  importance  of 
standardised definitions across EU Member States to ensure consistency. 

Meanwhile,  participants  within  the  EMPACT  network  confirmed  that  the  Directive’s 
transposition had a discernible deterrent effect, citing provisions such as the removal of 
the  need  for  prior  conviction  or  extensive  proof  of  the  predicate  offence,  the  ability  to 
prosecute  laundering  of  illicit  proceeds  linked  to  crimes  committed  in  other  Member 
States, and the liability of legal  entities for failures in supervision or control. They also 
noted  the  introduction  of  independent  criminal  proceedings  against  legal  entities, 
aggravating  circumstances  in  sentencing,  penalties  for  individuals,  and  sanctions  for 
corporate entities. 

4.1.1.4 Cross-border and international cooperation 

The evaluation seeks to establish the extent to which the provisions of the Directive have 
facilitated cross-border as well as international cooperation. 

It must be noted  that the Directive has certainly facilitated cross-border cooperation in an 
indirect  way,  by  approximating  legal  frameworks  so  that  authorities  from  different 
Member  States  ‘speak  a  common  language’:  the  more  offences  and  penalties  resemble 
each other, the easier it is for Member States to cooperate across borders and recognise 
judgments.  However,  the  Directive  does  not  contain  provisions  specifically  governing 
cross-border cooperation, which is regulated in other instruments such as the Directives 
on the European Investigation Order and on the exchange of information between police 
forces47. 

The  responses  on  this  topic  varied  depending  on  the  authorities  consulted,  and  often 
views  within  each  group  differed48,  the  responses  generally  suggest  that  there  was 
moderate to high facilitation of cross-border cooperation. 

Judicial  authorities  (five  out  of  seven)  generally  consider  that  cross-border  cooperation 
has improved to  a moderate to  very high  extent, primarily  thanks  to  the clarification of 
jurisdiction (Article 10), and to more common criminal law standards, which facilitate the 
use of mutual legal assistance instruments.  

47  Directive  2014/41/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  regarding  the 
European Investigation Order in criminal matters, OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, pp. 1–36, and Directive (EU) 
2023/977  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  10  May  2023  on  the  exchange  of 
information  between  the  law  enforcement  authorities  of  Member  States  and  repealing  Council 
Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA, OJ L 134, 22.5.2023, pp. 1–24. 

48  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 41. 

20 

 
 
 
Law enforcement authorities expressed more diverse views. Only a few law enforcement 
authorities  saw  little  impact  on  cross-border  cooperation,  while  most  stressed  the 
Directive’s  role  in  fostering  a  common  understanding  and  facilitating  information 
exchange. More than half of the Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) consulted considered 
the  Directive  to  have  a  moderate  effect,  noting  that  pre-existing  international  standards 
already  provided  a  solid  basis  for  cooperation.  Asset  recovery  offices  reported  mixed 
experiences: some observed increased requests and case numbers, while others stated that 
their work was largely unaffected. However, it’s not clear whether the implementation of 
the Directive led to the aforementioned increase in requests. 

Civil  society  stakeholders,  including  NGOs,  think  tanks,  and  professional  associations, 
highlighted  enhanced  information  exchange  and  the  creation  of  cooperation  networks 
among law enforcement authorities.  

Figure 2: Overview of national authorities’ responses to cross-border cooperation 
facilitation under Directive (EU) 2018/1673 

National Authorities' Assessment of Cross-Border Cooperation Facilitation under 
Directive (EU) 1673/2018 (Judicial Authorities:7, LEAs:13, AROs:8, FIUs:11)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2: Low facilitation

3: Moderate
facilitation

4: High facilitation

5: Very high
facilitation

Judicial authorities

LEAs

AROs

FIUs

Regarding the evaluation question about the extent to which the competent authorities of 
the  Member  States  cooperate  with  each  other  in  criminal  proceedings  regarding  money 
laundering,  a  2026  analysis  by  Eurojust49  shows  that  the  number  of  money  laundering 
cases has steadily increased since the adoption of the Directive.  

49  Source:  Eurojust  Case  Management  System.  DMU  Reference:  2026/OPD/DMU-3801/AW.  Due  to  the 

ongoing nature of cases, the figures may change after the reporting date. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Number of money laundering cases registered at Eurojust since 2016 

Number of money laundering cases, per year

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

On international cooperation beyond the EU, the impact was less evident, as suggested by 
stakeholders’  opinions,  which  diverged  within  each  group50.  Judicial  authorities  noted 
that  most  facilitation  was  confined  to  intra-EU  cooperation  and  that  they  did  not  see  a 
high degree of facilitation at international level, Meanwhile law enforcement authorities 
generally took the view that harmonisation within the EU contributes indirectly to global 
cooperation,  with  10  out  of  13  observing  moderate  or  high  facilitation  of  international 
cooperation, though concrete effects outside the EU remained limited.  

Overall,  the  Directive  appears  to  have  indirectly  facilitated  cross-border  cooperation 
within the EU to  some  extent, especially for judicial authorities, but  its  impact  remains 
uneven  across  stakeholders  and  appears  more  modest  in  the  field  of  international 
cooperation with non-EU countries. 

50  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 42. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Overview of national authorities’ responses to international cooperation 
facilitation under Directive (EU) 2018/1673 

National Authorities' Assessment of International Cooperation 
Facilitation under Directive (EU) 1673/2018 
(Judicial Authorities:7, LEAs: 13, AROs:8)

8
6
4
2
0

2: Low level of
facilitation

3: Moderate
facilitation

4: High level of
facilitation

5: Very high level
of facilitation

Judicial authorities

LEAs

AROs

4.1.2. Efficiency 

Main findings: 

•  Costs  →  Implementing  the  Directive  did  not  entail  significant  costs  or  excessive  administrative 
burden for MSs. No major legal amendments were required, nor were new structures established.  
•  Benefits  →  Data  are  limited,  and  further  monitoring  is  deemed  necessary.  Most  stakeholders 
report greater legal clarity and effectiveness, enhanced deterrence and improved cooperation 

According  to  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  efficiency  criterion  determines 
whether the Directive meets its objectives with minimal cost and no undue burdens. The 
assessment compared implementation costs and outcomes across the EU to determine if 
the Directive’s  results  justified its  costs and if the regulatory burden on  Member States 
was proportional to the benefits. 

4.1.2.1. Costs and benefits of the Directive 
The evaluation indicates that implementing the Directive did not entail significant costs 
or excessive administrative burden for Member States51. It considers the Directive largely 
built  on  existing  legislation  and  therefore  required  no  major  legal  amendments.  The 
obligations  of  the  Directive  mainly  produce  changes  in  national  criminal  codes  or 
criminal procedural laws, but do not necessarily entail the creation of new structures or 
procedures. Some additional costs that the Directive entails are training for judicial and 
law enforcement authorities, especially with a view to the investigation and prosecution 
of new forms of money laundering introduced by the Directive. However, these elements 
have  been  integrated  in  the  existing  continuous  training  opportunities  offered  to 
investigators, prosecutors and judges.  

51  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, pages 50 and 51. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Implementation costs of the Directive for law enforcement authorities 

Implementation costs of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 for the law 
enforcement authorities of the Member State

8

6

4

2

0

FIUs

Judicial authorities

LEAs

No

Yes

Figure 6:  Overview  of  the  reported  outsized  administrative  burden  associated  with 
Directive (EU) 2018/1673 

If aspects of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 represent an outsized 
administrative burden

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

AROs

Judicial authorities

LEAs

FIUs

No

Yes

On the benefits side, data are limited in view of the length of criminal proceedings. The 
evaluation  is  therefore  largely  based  on  observations  of  the  practical  benefits  that 
authorities  have  experienced  so  far52.  Asset  recovery  offices  pointed  to  greater  legal 
clarity and effectiveness (particularly regarding information exchange) as a result of the 
the notion of money laundering being redefined. Judicial authorities highlighted enhanced 
deterrence  and  improved  cooperation,  while  law  enforcement  reported  stronger 
investigative tools due to the provision in Article 11 of the Directive, deterrence effects, 

52 Ibid. 

24 

 
 
 
 
and  cross-border  collaboration.  At  the  same  time,  those  Member  States  whose  national 
framework  already  largely  reached  the  standards  set  by  the  Directive  at  the  time  of  its 
adoption noted only limited improvements. 

Overall,  there  are  indications  that  the  Directive  supports  the  fight  against  money 
laundering  and  safeguards  financial  integrity,  but  the  lack  of  comprehensive  data 
underlines the need for continued monitoring to fully capture its benefits. 

In conclusion, the assessment of costs and benefits can only be considered preliminary as 
it  is  largely  based  on  anecdotal  evidence/unquantifiable  general  observations  by 
stakeholders,  given  the  lack  of  comparative  quantitative  data  (as  discussed  above).  The 
full  impact  of  the  Directive  in  quantitative  terms  (number  of  prosecutions  and 
convictions,  volume  of  assets  frozen  and  confiscated  in  these  money  laundering  cases) 
can  only  be  assessed  once  a  statistically  significant  number  of  proceedings  concerning 
money laundering have been concluded. 

Finally, the evaluation assesses whether the administrative burden (including monitoring 
and  reporting)  could  be  simplified  or  reduced  without  undermining  the  intended 
objectives  of  the  Directive.  Considering  the  limited  administrative  burden  that  the 
Directive  entails  (confined  to  the  legislative  steps  to  transpose  the  Directive  and  the 
updating  of  training  curricula  for  competent  authorities),  and  the  absence  of  reporting 
obligations  incumbent  upon  Member  States,  the  evaluation  has  not  identified  any 
opportunities for simplifying the Directive 

4.1.3. Coherence 

Main findings: 

Internal coherence: No regulatory gaps arise from the Directive. 

• 
•  External  coherence:  The  Directive  is  generally  consistent  with  EU  legislation  and  internal 
security policies, though minor divergences exist regarding penalties and sanctions against natural 
and legal persons compared to other EU criminal law instruments. 
Some  elements  still  hinder  full  coherence  between  the  CMLD  and  the  international  framework. 
Notably,  the  Directive  adopts  a  narrower  definition  of  predicate  offences  than  does  the  Warsaw 
Convention.  However,  the  Convention  allows  parties,  upon  accession,  to  restrict  the  list  of 
predicate offences via a declaration. 

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, coherence is assessed in terms of internal 
and  external  coherence.  Internal  coherence  examines  how  the  components  of  the 
Criminalisation  of  Money  Laundering  Directive  (CMLD)  work  together  to  achieve  its 
objectives, while external coherence looks at how the Directive interacts with other EU 
measures, identifying synergies as well as possible overlaps.  

25 

 
 
 
 
4.1.3.1. Internal coherence 
Based on the survey results, it appears that there are no regulatory gaps stemming from 
the  Directive53.  The  different  stakeholder  groups  consulted  (judicial  authorities,  law 
enforcement  authorities,  Financial  Intelligence  Units,  and  Asset  Recovery  Offices) 
concur that the CMLD Directive does not present any instances of internal incoherencies. 
The  different  components  of  the  Directive  are  working  well  together  in  achieving  its 
objectives. 

4.1.3.2 External coherence 
At international level, the international framework against money laundering is largely 
shaped  by  the  2003  United  Nations  Convention  against  Transnational  Organised  Crime 
(UNTOC)  and  its  Protocols,  the  United  Nations  Convention  against  Corruption 
(UNCAC),  the  2005  Warsaw  Convention,  as  well  as  the  recommendations  of  the 
Financial  Action  Task  Force  (FATF).  The  Directive  contributes  to  the  facilitation  of 
international cooperation efforts achieved under these instruments, to the extent that it is 
aligned and, in some instances, goes beyond the provisions of these instruments, ensuring 
external coherence54.  

Despite  this  general  alignment,  some  elements  hamper  full  consistency  between  the 
CMLD and the international framework. Most notably, the Directive restricts the scope of 
predicate  offences  in  its  Article  2(1)  to  crimes  punishable  by  more  than  one  year’s 
imprisonment  (or  by  more  than  six  months  in  certain  cases)  and  to  those  belonging  to 
specifically listed categories. This narrower scope contrasts with the broader approach of 
the  Warsaw  Convention,  which  defines  the  predicate  offences  for  money  laundering  as 
‘any criminal offence’, regardless of the punishment (Article 1, lit. e). However, Article 
9(4)  of  the  Warsaw  Convention  permits  parties,  upon  accession,  to  restrict  the  list  of 
predicate  offences  through  a  declaration  (it  is  possible  to  restrict  it,  as  was  done  in  the 
Directive).  The  European  Union  has  not  yet  acceded  to  the  Convention  and  not  yet 
exercised this option. 

At the level of the European Union, the CMLD Directive is consistent with policies and 
legislation in the area of internal security.  

The reinforced penal response to money laundering introduced by the Directive is in line 
with  the  European  Internal  Security  Strategy  (‘ProtectEU’)55,  which  highlighted  that 
following the money is crucial in policy combating organised crime. The Strategy pointed 
out  the  essential  role  of  seizing  assets  and  confiscating  criminal  gains to  dismantle  the 
financial motives behind organised crime,  providing information on the work strands to 

53  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 53. 

54  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 54.  
55 EUR-Lex - 52025DC0148 - EN - EUR-Lex 

26 

 
 
be  pursued  to  reinforce  the  follow-the-money  approach,  including  the  effective 
implementation of new EU rules in this area.  

The Directive is equally consistent with such rules, including the Anti-Money Laundering 
Package  adopted  between  2023  and  2024.  This  package,  which 
the 
establishment  of  a  new  EU  Anti-Money  Laundering  Authority  (AMLA),  a  directly 
applicable  Anti-Money  Laundering  Regulation  (AMLR)56,  a  new  Directive  (AMLD6)57  
and a revision of the Regulation on Transfers of Funds58, is intended to create a uniform 
set  of  rules  for  the  private  sector  and  to  close  loopholes  exploited  by  criminals. 
Importantly, the new rules also address crypto assets, which had previously constituted a 
major  vulnerability.  These  reforms  are  fully  coherent  with,  and  complementary  to,  the 
CMLD  Directive,  since  they  reinforce  the  preventive  side  of  the  framework  and  thus 
support its provisions on criminalisation.  

includes 

Similarly,  consistency  is  evident  between  the  CMLD  and  the  new  Asset  Recovery  and 
Confiscation  Directive  (ARCD),  adopted  in  2024,  which  replaces  earlier  legislation  on 
asset recovery and confiscation. The ARCD directly refers to the  CMLD’s definition of 
money laundering, ensuring consistency in terminology and scope. Both instruments are 
mutually reinforcing, with the ARCD complementing the CMLD by extending the range 
of  confiscation  mechanisms,  notably  through  the  introduction  of  confiscation  of 
unexplained wealth linked to criminal activities.  

The  CMLD  Directive  is  also  consistent  with  Directive  (EU)  2017/1371  on  the  fight 
against fraud to the Union's financial interests (PIF Directive)59, which regulates offences 
affecting  the  Union’s  financial  interests.  Recital  10  of  the  CMLD  explicitly  excludes 
these offences  from  its scope, clarifying  that they fall under the PIF  Directive, but  also 
leaves  open  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  transpose  both  directives  through  a 
single  legislative  framework.  Given  that  the  PIF  Directive  refers  to  definitions  from 
AMLD4, minor adjustments  may be needed to ensure consistency with the more recent 
CMLD Directive. 

In conclusion, the Directive shows partial consistency with the international framework, 
contributing  to  global  efforts  in  this  field,  with  the  remaining  issue  of  the  narrower 
approach  of  predicate  offences.  At  EU  level,  the  CMLD  fits  consistently  within  the 

56 Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 establishing 
the  Authority for  Anti-Money  Laundering  and  Countering  the  Financing of  Terrorism  and  amending 
Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010. 

57  Directive  (EU)  2024/1640  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  31  May  2024  on  the 
mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of  the use of the financial system 
for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, and 
amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849. 

58  Regulation  (EU)  2023/1113  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  31  May  2023  on 
information  accompanying  transfers  of funds  and  certain  crypto-assets  and amending  Directive  (EU) 
2015/849. 

59  Directive  (EU)  2017/1371  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2017  on  the  fight 
against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law, OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, pp. 29–
41. 

27 

 
 
broader legislative  landscape. The AML package, the PIF Directive and the ARCD not 
only  complement  the  CMLD  but  also  fill  important  gaps,  particularly  in  the  areas  of 
crypto-assets and asset confiscation. 

At the same time, the Directive diverges on some points from more recent criminal law 
directives,  for  example  the  Directive  (EU)  2024/1203  on  the  protection  of  the 
environment  through  criminal  law60  and  Directive  (EU)  2024/1226  on  the  violation  of 
Union  restrictive  measures61.  As  a  consequence,  there  is  a  lack  of  consistency  between 
EU  criminal  law  instruments.  The  need  for  a  more  consistent  approach  to  criminal 
legislation was also highlighted by the Council. It adopted conclusions on ‘the future of 
EU  criminal  law:  recommendations  on  the  way  forward‘62,  inviting  the  Commission  to 
ensure and reinforce the internal consistency of the EU criminal law and in the Council 
conclusions on ‘Model provisions on EU substantive criminal law’63 where standard non-
binding provisions, inter alia for penalties and sanctions against natural and legal persons, 
were adopted.  

Regarding  the  application  of  additional  penalties  against  natural  persons,  the 
Directive  requires  Member  States  to  make  provision  for,  in  addition  to  imprisonment, 
additional sanctions or measures against perpetrators of money laundering. The fact that 
the  Directive  does  not  specify  which  type  of  measure  should  be  imposed,  causes 
variations in national transpositions. In contrast, more recent EU criminal law instruments 
explicitly  list  possible  optional  measures  for  Member  States  to  apply  against  natural 
persons, such as fines, exclusion from funding and public tenders, withdrawals of permits 
or temporary bans on running for public office.  

A similar issue occurs with regards to sanctions for legal persons. While in this case the 
Directive  does  provide  a  list  of  possible  additional  sanctions  these  remain  optional  and 
are not outlined in sufficient detail. Fines are foreseen to be mandatorily implemented by 
Member States, but the Directive does not further specify how they are calculated.  This 
contrasts with the most recent criminal law legislation, which foresees that the minimum 
levels  of  maximum  fines  for  legal  persons  for  offences  covered  by  the  respective 
Directive  are  to  be  calculated  either  based  on  a  percentage  of  the  global  worldwide 
turnover or on a specific fixed amount64. 

60  Directive  (EU)  2024/1203  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  April  2024  on  the 
protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law  and  replacing  Directives  2008/99/EC  and 
2009/123/EC. 

61  Directive  (EU)  2024/1226  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  April  2024  on  the 
definition  of  criminal  offences  and  penalties  for  the  violation  of  Union  restrictive  measures  and 
amending Directive (EU) 2018/1673. 

62  Council  conclusions  on  the  future  of  criminal  law:  recommendations  on  the  way  forward: 

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10984-2024-INIT/en/pdf 

63Council 

conclusions 

on  Model 

provisions 

on 

EU 

substantive 

criminal 

law: 

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-16638-2025-INIT/en/pdf 

64 For example, Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 
on the protection of the environment through criminal law obliges  Member States to  make provision 
for  fines  for  legal  persons  in  the  case  of  specific  offences.  The  Directive,  also  stipulates  that  the 
maximum  level  of  those  fines  should  be  at  least  5  %  or  a  lump  sum  of  EUR  40 000 000for  certain 

28 

 
 
 
4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

4.2.1 EU added value 

Main findings: 

•  Stakeholders broadly agreed that the Directive created significant EU added value by establishing 
a  level  playing  field  and  harmonising  money  laundering  offences  and  penalties  across  Member 
States. 

•  The  Directive  offers  limited  added  value  to  countries  where  its  core  provisions  were  already 
enshrined in national law—though they still gain from improved cross-border cooperation—while 
the inconsistent adoption of optional measures has undermined full harmonisation. 

This  section  assesses  the  EU  added  value  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  compared  with 
what Member States could have achieved individually to face a threat that is transnational 
in  nature. Criminal  organisations and their  money launderers  transfer money and assets 
across borders and set up complex transnational ownership schemes to obscure the illicit 
origin  of  the  funds  and  hide  the  financial  trail  from  the  radar  of  authorities.  Criminals 
take advantage of the fragmented overview authorities have of the financial flows to hide 
their  money  across  entities  and  countries.  The  only  way  of  effectively  addressing  this 
challenge  is  through  robust  cross-border  cooperation,  which,  in  order  to  be  effective, 
requires  a  more  aligned  penal  framework  against  money  laundering  across  Member 
States. The analysis draws on desk research, surveys, expert consultations and interviews. 

Stakeholders  broadly  agreed  that  the  Directive  created  significant  EU  added  value  by 
establishing  a  level  playing  field  and  harmonising  money  laundering  offences  and 
penalties  across  Member  States65.  This  common  framework  was  seen  as  particularly 
beneficial for cross-border investigations and international police cooperation. 

However, the Directive’s added value is limited in some other respects. In approximately 
10  Member  States,  key  provisions  were  already  part  of  national  law,  meaning  the 
Directive brought only marginal change for those countries internally66. However, those 
Member  States  also  benefited  from  smoother  cross-border  cooperation  thanks  to  the 
approximation of other Member States’ legislation. 

Optional  provisions  (‘may  clauses’)  were  transposed  in  several  countries,  but  not 
uniformly. Moreover, some stakeholders stressed that minimum  EU rules do not  go  far 
enough to eliminate differences on issues such as negligence, self-laundering, stand-alone 
money laundering, or liability of legal persons67. As a result, full harmonisation has not 
yet  been  achieved  causing  some  missed  opportunities  as  outlined  in  the  effectiveness 
section. 

offences  related  to  the  pollution  of  the  environment  and  3  %  or  EUR 24 000 000  for  other  offences 
such as wildlife trafficking. 

65  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 59. 

66 Ibid. 
67 Ibid. 

29 

 
 
 
 
Overall,  the  Directive  is  assessed  as  having  high  EU  added  value,  providing  common 
definitions  –  especially  for  self-laundering  and  stand-alone  money  laundering  –  and 
closer  sanctions  amongst  Members  States.  This  facilitates  a  smoother  cooperation  to 
combat  money  laundering  across  borders,  which  could  not  have  been  achieved  by 
Member States acting alone.  

4.2.2. Fundamental rights and freedoms 

Main findings: 

•  Member  State  authorities  and  EU/international  bodies  generally  consider  the  Directive  to  be  in 

line with fundamental rights standards. 

•  NGOs and academics have voiced some concerns, particularly with regard to the vagueness of the 
definition of “criminal activity” (principle of legality), the stand-alone money laundering offence 
(presumption of innocence) and the self-laundering offences (ne bis in idem principle). 

In line with Article 14(2) of Directive (EU) 2018/1673, the evaluation also considers the 
impact of the Directive on fundamental rights following the Better Regulation Guidelines 
on  this  aspect.  Feedback  diverges  considerably  depending  on  the  stakeholder  group. 
NGOs  and  academics  have  voiced  concerns,  notably  regarding  the  stand-alone  money 
laundering offence and the self-laundering offence with regards to their possible impact 
on  the  presumption  of  innocence,  access  to  legal  representation,  privacy  and  the 
proportionality of penalties. Member State authorities and EU/international bodies either 
considered  the  Directive  to  be  in  line  with  fundamental  rights  standards  or  reported  no 
available data. 

Overall, the evidence base remains insufficient to allow firm conclusions to be drawn, in 
the  absence  of  firm  case  law  and  concrete  data    showing  that  any  limitations  on  the 
exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
do not comply with the requirements of Article 52 thereof.  

International  organisations  and  EU  bodies  broadly  confirmed  that  the  Directive 
respects fundamental rights68. They noted that the offences listed in Articles 3 and 4 are 
defined in a clear and foreseeable manner and that the penalties provided for in Article 5 
are proportionate. One organisation reported no impact on freedom of association, while 
another considered the  Directive to  be  consistent with  both  the Charter  of Fundamental 
Rights  of  the  European  Union  and  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights. 
Generally, these stakeholders have not reported significant issues but highlighted a lack 
of  systematic  data.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union 
(CJEU)  69,  in  interpreting  Directive  2005/60/EC,  has  ruled  on  the  compatibility  of  self-
laundering with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
The Court held that there is no breach of the principle of ne bis in idem provided that the 

68  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, pages 61-62. 

69Judgment 

2.9.2021 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0790. 

Case 

of 

C-709/19 

- 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

30 

 
 
 
 
facts underlying the money-laundering prosecution are not identical to those constituting 
the predicate offence. 

NGOs, think tanks, academics and associations expressed more critical perspectives70 
on the potential direct impact on fundamental rights and freedoms by the Directive. 

With  regard  to  the  definition  of  ‘criminal  activity’  in  Article  2,  for  example,  some 
stakeholders  have  voiced  concerns  that  it  does  not  fully  meet  the  legality  principle, 
pointing to vague terminology such as ‘cybercrime’ and ‘corruption’”, which undermines 
legal certainty. 

Concerns were also raised about Article 3 (2), which allows Member States to convict for 
money laundering where the person concerned suspected or ought to have known of the 
illicit  origin  of  the  property.  Stakeholders,  consider  that  this  may  undermine  the 
presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, due to a low burden of proof.  

The  introduction  of  the  stand-alone  money  laundering  offence  (Article  3  (3)  (a)  (b)), 
which  allows  for  conviction  when  the  illicit  origin  of  property  is  proven,  without 
requiring all factual elements of the predicate offence or the identity of the perpetrator of 
that  predicate  offence  to  be  demonstrated,  has  also  raised  some  concerns  in  this 
stakeholder group. On the one hand, the reduced evidentiary threshold has been deemed 
potentially against the principle of proportionality; especially where Member States apply 
an all-crimes approach – meaning that all crimes can constitute a predicate offence – even 
minor  offences  could  potentially  give  rise  to  money  laundering  charges.  Judges  may 
therefore  lack  sufficient  context  regarding  the  underlying  conduct,  which  could  risk 
imposing potentially disproportionate sanctions. On the other hand, NGOs indicated that 
these  provisions  raise  concerns  on  the  right  to  be  presumed  innocent  until  proved 
otherwise  and  might  affect  defence  rights  and  general  principles  which  govern  any 
criminal procedure. 

Regarding  self-laundering  under  Article  3(5),  certain  stakeholders  have  pointed  out  the 
risk  of  violations  of  the  principle  of  ne  bis  in  idem  (double  jeopardy),  as  enshrined  in 
Article 50 of the Charter, where Member States go beyond the minimum standards set by 
the Directive and punish as self-laundering the acquisition, possession, or use of property 
by  the  author  of  the  predicate  offence.  This  concerns,  for  instance,  cases  where  an 
offender steals a vehicle (predicate offence) and the possession and/or use of the vehicle 
are  regarded  as  self-laundering  offences.  The  Directive  does  not  foresee 
the 
criminalisation  of  the  acquisition,  possession  or  use  of  property  derived  from  criminal 
activity  when  these  conducts  are  committed  by  the  person  who  committed  or  was 
involved in the criminal activity from which the property was derived. These stakeholders 
argued that use and possession of proceeds may be inherent in the predicate offence itself, 
and the use and possession can be viewed as a direct and logical consequence of the theft 

70  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, pages 62-63. 

31 

 
 
and not as a separate money laundering offence. As a result, also prosecuting the offender 
for money laundering could be seen as punishing the same conduct twice.  

In addition, they criticised Article 11 for extending special investigative tools – typically 
reserved for combating organised crime or serious offenses - to simple money laundering 
cases,  which  they  considered  disproportionate  and  potentially  infringing  on  privacy. 
While  one  NGO  considered  that  the  Directive  itself  provides  adequate  guarantees,  two 
NGOs argued that explicit safeguards  for each fundamental  right should be included in 
the main body of the legislation. 

Feedback  from  national  authorities  was  generally  more  positive  or  inconclusive71.  On 
the  issue  of  private  and  family  life  and  data  protection,  Asset  Recovery  Offices  and 
Financial  Intelligence  Units  mostly  reported  no  available  data  on  which  to  base  an 
assessment, with a few noting no identifiable effect. A minority of Asset recovery offices 
suggested  that  fundamental  rights  implications  were  inherent  in  but  not  exacerbated  by 
the  extension  of  the  list  of  crimes  that  can  constitute  a  predicate  offence.  Law 
enforcement  agencies  were  evenly  divided  between  those  reporting  no  data  and  those 
observing  no  impact.  Several  underlined  that  the  Directive  was  consistent  with  the 
principles  set  out  in  Article 2  TEU  and  with  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European Union, and that it largely reflected existing criminal law provisions on money 
laundering. Judicial authorities were the most consistent, with the majority reporting no 
effects of the Directive on this topic, and one authority indicating a lack of relevant data. 

Figure 7 – Effect of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 on the protection of private and family life 
and personal data   

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

AROs

FIUs

Judicial authorities

LEAs

No Data

No effects

71  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, page 64. 

32 

 
 
 
When asked about the proportionality of the penalties laid down in Article 5 of Directive 
(EU)  2018/1673,  all  judicial  authorities  considered  them  appropriate  to  the  nature  and 
gravity  of  the  offences.  By  contrast,  on  questions  concerning  the  presumption  of 
innocence and the rights of suspects and accused persons both judicial authorities and law 
enforcement agencies either reported no data or did not identify any effects. 

Figure 8: Effect of Directive (EU) 2018/1673 on upholding the presumption of innocence 
and ensuring the rights of suspects and accused persons 

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Judicial authorities

LEAs

No Data

No effects

Figure 9: Concerns about fundamental rights of self- laundering suspects, based on stakeholders’ 
input  

No

Yes

In  conclusion,  while  some  stakeholders,  in  particular  representatives  of  civil  society 
organisations  and  academia,  have  voiced  concerns  regarding  the  presumption  of 
innocence  when  applying  the  stand-alone  money  laundering  offence,  the  principle  of 
double  jeopardy  (ne  bis  in  idem)  in  cases  of  self-laundering72,  and  the  clarity  and 

72 As in self-laundering the distinction between predicate offence and money laundering offence is often not 
clear-cut, so that there is a risk of a double punishment for the same act if there is a conviction for the 
predicate offence and the money laundering offence. 

33 

 
 
 
 
proportionality  of  the  definition  of  offences  and  penalties,  other  stakeholders,  in 
particular  Member  States’  authorities  and  EU/international  bodies,  do  not  appear  to 
identify major issues or do not have relevant data on this matter.  

While the Directive does not contain specific provisions on procedural rights, such rights 
are ensured through horizontal rules set out in the six EU procedural rights directives, in 
the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  and  in  the  European 
Convention  of  Human  Rights.  The  application  and  interpretation  of  national  rules  that 
transpose  the  Directive  is  subject  to  review  of  national  courts  that  have  to  ensure 
compliance  with  the  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  enshrined  in  above-mentioned 
instruments. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  assess  any  possible  problem  associated  with 
fundamental rights in the application of the Directive as part of its continuous monitoring 
activities. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

The relevance criterion examines whether the objectives of an intervention remain fit for 
purpose  and  adequately  respond  to  the  problems  they  were  designed  to  address.  In  the 
case of Directive (EU) 2018/1673, this means assessing to what extent its objectives and 
measures continue to tackle the key challenges of money laundering and organised crime, 
while  also  addressing  newly  emerging  risks  and  needs  in  this  area,  and  how  the 
provisions  can  be  enhanced  to  effectively  respond  to  current  and  future  threats.  The 
evaluation  further  aims  to  identify  any  provisions  that  might  be  considered  obsolete  or 
that should be adapted to take certain developments into account.  

4.3.1.  Current  and  future  threats  and  needs  concerning  the  development  of 
organised crime, particularly focusing on evolving money laundering activities 
According  to  some  law  enforcement  authorities,  the  Directive  remains  too  general  in 
scope, setting out standards that were already largely applied in the Member States prior 
to its adoption. However, most survey respondents consider that the Directive adequately 
addresses  the  difficulties  faced  by  authorities  in  investigating  and  prosecuting  money 
laundering.  Emerging  challenges  flagged  by  stakeholders,  such  as  money  laundering 
facilitated  by  virtual  currencies,  are  adequately  covered  by  the  Directive  because  of  its 
technology-neutral  character,  and  addressed  through  other  EU  legislative  instruments, 
such as the Anti-Money Laundering Package. 

4.3.2.  Remaining  obstacles/legal  and  practical  issues  in  the  fight  against  money 
laundering   
Most  stakeholders  did  not  point  out  any  provisions  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  that 
have  become  less  effective  in  terms  of  addressing  current  challenges  associated  with 
investigating money laundering and predicate offences73. One law enforcement authority, 

73  Deloitte  (2024).  Evaluation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  the  fight  against  money  laundering  by 

criminal law, final report, pages 69-70. 

34 

 
 
however, stressed that the rapid emergence of new technologies, such as fintech services 
and virtual currencies, requires the European legislator to consider more specific rules on 
investigative tools adapted to  these developments.  The respondent  referred in  particular 
to  Article  11,  which  addresses  the  use  of  such  tools  in  preparatory  proceedings  only  in 
broad and general terms.  

Overall,  the  Directive’s  objectives  and  measures  continue  to  meet  identified  needs  and 
current  challenges  in  relation  to  money  laundering  and  organised  crime.  According  to 
Europol’s  Serious  and  Organised  Threat  Assessment  2025,  money  laundering  plays  a 
crucial role in  enabling criminals to profit from illegal activities and is the backbone of 
organised crime74. Moreover, modi operandi of money laundering often involve multiple 
transactions  across  various  non-EU  jurisdictions,  exploiting  regulatory  disparities  and 
creating  a  complex  trail  that  challenges  financial  investigations:  a  harmonised  criminal 
response across Member States therefore remains as important as ever. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

The  overall  objective  of  this  Staff  Working  Document  is  to  evaluate  Directive  (EU) 
2018/1673 on combating money laundering by criminal law. The evaluation considers the 
Directive  in  light  of  six  evaluation  criteria:  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence,  EU  added  value  and  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on  fundamental  rights  and 
freedoms. 

•  The  Directive  is  assessed  as  being  overall  effective  in  strengthening  the  fight 
against  money  laundering.  In  particular,  while  in  some  Member  States  a  certain 
alignment  with  its  obligations  had  already  been  achieved,  desk  research  and 
stakeholder  input  shows  that  it  has  contributed  to  greater  harmonisation  of  the 
legal  framework.  This  includes  the  definitions  of  money  laundering  offences 
laundering  and  self-laundering,  and  related 
including  stand-alone  money 
penalties. 

•  The  Directive  also  indirectly  facilitated  law  enforcement  and  judicial  action 
and  cross-border  cooperation  against  money  laundering.  This  was  stressed  by 
several stakeholders consulted. 

•  The Directive can be considered efficient as it did not incur implementation costs 
or  administrative  burden;  only  a  possible  increased  investigative  workload  was 
mentioned  in  terms  of  possible  costs.  While  this  aligns  with  the  nature  of  a 
criminal  law  directive  that  updates  existing  legislation,  there  was  also  a  lack  of 
quantifiable data which. This made it impossible to collect conclusive evidence on 
the  costs  of  achieving  the  results  of  the  Directive.  As  mentioned  in  Section 
4.1.2.1.,  however,  the  assessment  of  costs  and  benefits  can  only  be  preliminary 
and qualitative and will be more visible in the coming years, given the length of 
criminal proceedings. 

74 europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/EU-SOCTA-2025.pdf 

35 

 
 
•  The evaluation shows that the different components of the Directive are working 
well  together  in  achieving  its  objectives  (internal  coherence)  and  broadly  align 
with  the  international  framework  and  with  other  EU  policies  in  the  area  of 
fighting criminal finances (external coherence).  

•  The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Directive  demonstrates  some  EU  added  value 
through  the  creation  of  a  more  aligned  criminal  law  framework  against  money 
laundering across the EU. This was also underlined by several of the stakeholders 
consulted, who saw this as a positive step contributing to greater legal consistency 
across jurisdictions and facilitating cross-border cooperation in the EU. This could 
not have been achieved if the criminalisation of money laundering had been left to 
Member States individually. 

•  Concerns regarding the compatibility of the Directive and its transposition in the 
Member States with fundamental rights and freedoms were expressed by some 
academics and  criminal  law practitioners. These  concerns relate to  the clarity  of 
the definition of offences and penalties and/or the proportionality of the latter as 
well as undue interferences with the presumption of innocence and the principle 
of  ne  bis  in  idem,  in  particular  in  relation  to  self-laundering  offences  and 
‘negligent’ money laundering. Other stakeholders either considered that there was 
no  undue  impact  on  fundamental  rights  or  did  not  have  sufficient  data  to  draw 
conclusions on this issue  

•  Overall, the Directive’s objectives and measures  continue to address identified 
needs and ongoing challenges related to money laundering and organised crime, 
although  new  technological  developments  mean  that  the  criminal  landscape  in 
which authorities operate has been slightly altered. 

In general, the Directive achieved its objectives, and the assessment of its functionality 
is positive.  

On  the  availability  of  relevant  data  for  the  purpose  of  the  assessment,  the  report  and 
supporting  external  study  were  limited  in  specific  areas.  This  includes  data  on  the 
practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  across  all  Member  States  regarding  case 
numbers on investigations and judicial proceedings, as well as quantifiable data regarding 
the  costs.  Member  States  did  not  always  provide  sufficient  evidence  during  the 
consultations for the external study. Where possible, this problem has been mitigated to 
the greatest possible extent by drawing on other exchanges with practitioners, for instance 
in bilateral meetings or in meetings at Eurojust, and by relying on desk research done by 
the Commission or by drawing on reports from Eurojust and Europol. Nevertheless, the 
evaluation would have benefited from additional data input. 

Despite the overall positive assessment, the evaluation  identified  several  issues limiting 
the functioning of the Directive. There is scope for further improvement based on the 
lessons learned as set out below. 

One area of concern relates to the differing interpretations of the required standard of 
proof  to  establish  the  existence  of  a  predicate  offence  or  the  illicit  origin  of 

36 

 
laundered  assets  for  the  stand-alone  money  laundering  offence.  While  the  Directive 
leaves margin for interpretation, the lack of detailed rules on the requirements to establish 
the  existence  of  a  predicate  offence  or  the  illicit  origin  of  laundered  property  does  not 
ensure  a  uniform  application  of  stand-alone  money  laundering,  brings  challenges  in 
relation  to  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of  money  laundering  across  EU  Member 
States, and according to some stakeholders carries risks with regards to the impact on the 
rights  of  affected  persons.  The  Directive  has  shown  misalignment  with  newly  adopted 
EU  criminal  legislation,  such  as  Directive  (EU)  2024/1203  on  the  protection  of  the 
environment  through  criminal  law75  and  Directive  (EU)  2024/1226  on  the  violation  of 
Union  restrictive  measures76.  Compared  with  these  recently  adopted  instruments,  the 
Directive does not list the penalties that can be applied to natural persons in addition to 
imprisonment, and for legal person it does not define in sufficient detail the calculation of 
the fines and additional sanctions that Member States may apply and they are, unlike in 
most recent instruments, only optional. 

Similarly,  stakeholders  report  that  the  definition  of  ‘property’  under  the  Directive  is 
applied  inconsistently  across  Member  States.  Although  the  Directive  defines  property 
broadly,  it  does  not  explicitly  refer  to  all  types  of  illicit  economic  advantages,  such  as 
cost  savings  or  indirect  proceeds  from  criminal  activities.  This  leads  to  uncertainty 
concerning  the  interpretation  of  the  scope  of  the  Directive  and  its  consistent 
implementation  across  Member  States.  It  also  makes  it  difficult  to  identify,  freeze  and 
confiscate criminal assets. 

While  there  is  general  consistency,  as  described  above,  the  evaluation  points  to  minor 
inconsistencies  with  the  Council  of  Europe  Warsaw  Convention77,  and  some  gaps  as 
compared  to  the  most  recent  criminal  law  directives.  These  inconsistencies  can  lead  to 
confusion  in  the  application  of  the  legal  frameworks  and  can  lead  to  a  non-uniform 
application of law and should be addressed. 

Furthermore, it would be beneficial if Member States consistently monitor aspects  such 
as  the  costs  or  burdens  associated  with  implementing  of  the  Directive  or  case  data 
regarding  investigations  into  newly  created  offences.  This  would  enhance  both  the 
Member  States’  as  well  as  the  Commission’s  ability  to  evaluate  the  functioning  of  the 
Directive in the future. 

75  Directive  (EU)  2024/1203  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  April  2024  on  the 
protection  of  the  environment  through  criminal  law  and  replacing  Directives  2008/99/EC  and 
2009/123/EC. 

76  Directive  (EU)  2024/1226  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  April  2024  on  the 
definition  of  criminal  offences  and  penalties  for  the  violation  of  Union  restrictive  measures  and 
amending Directive (EU) 2018/1673. 

77  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on Laundering,  Search,  Seizure  and  Confiscation  of  the  Proceeds  from 

Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198).      

37 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. Lead DG 

The Terms of Reference for engaging a contractor to carry out the external study as part 
of  the  evaluation  were  drawn  up  by  DG  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  (DG  HOME).  A 
request  for  service  was  issued  on  1.8.2023,  and  a  contractor  selected  by  an  evaluation 
committee consisting of staff from  DG HOME78. The study began on 12 October 2023 
and ended on 23 October 2024.  

2. Organisation and timing 

As  per  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  an  inter-service  group  was  set  up  within  the 
Commission  to  oversee  the  evaluation.  Several  Directorates-General  (DGs)  within  the 
Commission79  were  invited  to  nominate  representatives  to  the  steering  group.  
The  meetings  of  the  inter-service  group  were  chaired  by  DG  HOME.  The  group  was 
consulted over the course of the evaluation. The following list provides an overview of 
the steering group’s work over the course of the evaluation:  

•  The inter-service group was convened for the first time on 12 July 2023 in order 
to receive initial information about and provide feedback on draft versions of the 
Terms of Reference for the external study and on the Call for Evidence.    

•  On  3  April  2024  the  inter-service  group  met  to  discuss  the  contractor’s  interim 

report and provided written feedback after the meeting. 

•  On 19 June 2025, the steering group convened to receive and provide feedback on 
the  contractor’s  draft  Final  Report.  The  participants  were  invited  to  provide 
additional written feedback after the meeting.  

On  24  September  2024,  the  Final  Report  was  re-submitted  by  the  contractor  to  DG 
HOME and subsequently accepted.  

3. Evidence, sources and quality   

The evaluation drew on different types of documents at EU, international and national 
level. 

78  The  call  for  service  was  issued  via  framework  contract  HOME/2018/ISFB/PR/EVAL/0017.  One 
contractor submitted a bid to carry out the evaluation. The evaluation committee considered a number 
of criteria, namely: compliance with the technical specifications described in the Terms of Reference; 
demonstrated understanding of the objectives and tasks; the quality of the preliminary assessment of 
difficulties  and  expected  results;  the  quality  of  the  proposed  methodology;  and  the  quality  of  the 
project management and team organisation. The Commission awarded the contract to Deloitte. 

79 The DGs invited to participate in the steering group included: the Secretariat-General of the Commission 
(SG);  Legal  Service  (LS);  Justice  and  Consumers  (JUST);  GROW;  FISMA;  BUDG;  OLAF;  EEAS; 
NEAR; TAXUD; ECFIN; FPI 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
Policy  documents,  legal  instruments  and  research  reports  the  EU  level  provided 
indications as to the nature and scope of EU anti-money laundering policy, in particular 
when related to criminal law. At international level, the contractor reviewed documents 
describing international standards and initiatives relating to criminal law provisions in the 
the  Warsaw  Convention  and  FATF 
field  of  money 
Recommendations. Finally, at the national level, national legislative measures, strategies, 
administrative  procedures  and  guidelines  that  in  one  way  or  another  were  relevant  in 
transposing  and  implementing  the  provisions  contained  in  the  Directive  were  of 
relevance.  The  contractor  also  conducted  an  analysis  of  national  implementation 
measures  with  the  aim  of  creating  a  better  picture  of  the  situation  in  practice  and 
identifying challenges and opportunities. 

laundering, 

such  as 

Besides  a  review  of  the  relevant  documents,  the  evaluation  also  relied  on  extensive 
consultations with a wide range of stakeholders with desk research, discovery interviews, 
targeted  consultations  (via  surveys  and  interviews),  statistical  data  collection,  case 
studies and, expert input through workshops. These consultations served as opportunities 
to  collect  new  data  or  to  confirm  the  validity  of  already  collected  data.  Additional 
information concerning the stakeholder consultations is provided in Annex V. 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

1.  Methods and sources 

The  external  study  was  carried  out  by  Deloitte,  following  a  call  for  services  under  a 
framework  contract.  Evidence  was  collected  through  six  complementary  activities  that 
were  carried  out  under  the  close  supervision  of  DG  HOME:  desk  research,  discovery 
interviews,  targeted  consultations  (surveys  and  interviews),  statistical  data  collection, 
three case studies, and expert workshops. Data triangulation was applied systematically 
to ensure objectivity and robustness by balancing qualitative and quantitative evidence. 

The study placed particular emphasis on stakeholder perspectives. Extensive surveys and 
late  2023  and  early  2024,  allowing  for 
interviews  were  conducted  between 
contemporaneous insights into the Directive’s implementation and practical implications. 
Sensitive  information  collected  during  the  consultations  was  processed  under  strict 
confidentiality  rules  in  line  with  EU  classified  information  and  relevant  national 
requirements.  

2.  Known limitations 

The table below outlines challenges, risks and limitations encountered when collecting 
and analysing the data, along with the mitigating measures taken: 

39 

 
 
 
 
Challenge/Risk/Limitation 

Mitigation action (proactive and reactive) 

Reach the relevant 
stakeholders and avoid 
consultation fatigue 

The involvement of the right stakeholders was crucial for the 
success of the study supporting the evaluation. The study team 
therefore  incorporated  several  mitigation  measures  in  this 
regard: 

•  Stakeholder  mapping 

engagement:  A 
stakeholder  mapping  strategy  facilitated  timely  and 
appropriate  engagement,  supported  by  introductions 
and endorsements from DG HOME. 

and 

•  Monitoring  response  rate:  Response  rates  to  online 
surveys were closely monitored, with the circulation of 
personalised 
if 
necessary. 

time  extensions 

reminders  and 

•  Alternative  engagement:  Stakeholders  encountering 
challenges  in  submitting  their  responses  within  the 
designated  deadline  for  the  online  survey  were  given 
the opportunity to participate in a brief interview with 
the evaluation team to provide their input. 

Timely data 
availability and low 
response rate 

Several  consulted  stakeholders  noted  challenges  regarding 
providing  the  study  team  with  the  requested  data  in  a  timely 
manner.  The  supporting  study  implemented  the  following 
mitigation actions, to promote further stakeholder engagement 
and fill in any data gaps: 

follow-up  emails 

•  Follow-up  emails:  Send 

to 
stakeholders  who  had  not  provided  input  to  remind 
them of the survey and encourage their participation. 
•  Deadline  extension  with  formal  communication: 
Formally  communicate  the  extension  of  the  deadline 
for providing input, ensuring stakeholders are aware of 
the opportunity to contribute. 

•  Edit  survey  question  rules  (optional  response): 
Convert any remaining mandatory surveys to optional, 
enabling  stakeholders  to  provide  partial  input  if 
necessary. 

•  Provision  of  alternative  engagement  options:  Offer 
alternative  engagement  avenues  such  as  private 
consultations  or  focus  group  discussions  to  gather 
insights  from  stakeholders  who  may  prefer  or  require 
alternative means of participation. 

•  Expansion  of  stakeholder  list:  Consider  broadening 
further 

to  promote 

stakeholders 

list  of 

the 
representation and input. 

40 

 
Challenge/Risk/Limitation 

Mitigation action (proactive and reactive) 

Reluctance from 
stakeholders to share 
their views 

Stakeholders  may  hesitate  to  share  views  due  to  privacy 
concerns  or  discomfort.  As  their  insights  are  crucial  for 
assessing  the  performance  of  the  Directive,  the  study  team 
tried to address these concerns as follows: 

•  Anonymity  assurance:  Stakeholders  were  assured  of 
anonymised data usage for aggregate study purposes. 
•  Clarification of purpose: The study team clarified the 
purpose  and  confidentiality  measures  at  the  outset  of 
interviews and surveys. 

•  Adjusted  approach  for  partial  input:  The  study 
team revised the online survey questions, shifting them 
from  mandatory  to  optional  for  specific  stakeholder 
categories  unable  to  provide  input  on  all  survey 
inquiries.  This  modification  enabled  stakeholders  to 
they  are 
provide  partial 
knowledgeable about, ensuring their insights were still 
captured effectively. 

input  on  questions 

•  Alternative  engagement:  Stakeholders  unable  to 
provide responses to all survey questions were offered 
the option of participating in  interviews to  share their 
input effectively. 

3.  Process description 

To assess the Directive’s impact, a multifaceted approach involving both qualitative and 
quantitative data collection methods was developed. 

The qualitative data were sourced for the period 2001-2018 (to the extent possible), thus 
taking  into  account  the  fact  that  Council  Framework  Decision  2001/500/JHA  was  in 
force  until  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  was  adopted.  This  approach  ensured  that  an 
exhaustive  analysis  was  carried  out  into  the  situation  before  the  Directive  was  adopted 
and  into  the  Directive’s  influence  on  the  harmonising  of  money-laundering  offences. 
Furthermore,  the  external  study  drew  on  in-depth  surveys  and  interviews  at  the  end  of 
2023  and  in  early  2024,  providing  contemporaneous  insight  into  stakeholders’ 
perspectives  and  enabling  an  academic  exploration  of  the  Directive’s  practical 
implications.  

The  evaluation  used  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  and  evidence  to  assess  the 
to 
performance  of  existing  programmes,  compared  with  expectations  prior 

41 

 
 
implementation  of  Directive  (EU)  2018/1673  on  combating  money  laundering  by 
criminal law.  

The  research  was  structured  along  the  five  core  evaluation  criteria  listed  in  the  Better 
Regulation  Guidelines:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added 
value. In addition to these, the evaluation team also assessed the impact of the Directive 
on  the  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  having  regard  to  the  different  stages  of  the 
criminal procedure.  

Fig. 1 Intervention logic and evaluation criteria 

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation used the intervention logic 
(IL)  (see  Figure  1  above)  and  the  evaluation  matrix  (EM)  (see  Annex  III)  to 
conceptualise the key elements of the policy intervention, design the data collection, help 
to  establish  judgements  and  conclusions  in  response  to  the  evaluation  questions,  and, 
finally, provide grounds for the recommendations as a basis for possible future revisions 
of the Directive. The intervention logic is to be found in Figures 1 and 2. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fig. 2 Intervention logic 

The study supporting the evaluation involved organising and making use of six different 
data  collection  activities  to  assess  the  performance  of  the  Directive:  desk  research, 
discovery interviews, targeted consultations (via surveys and interviews), statistical data 
collection, case studies and, expert input through workshops. 

Stakeholder consultation 

3.1. 
Continuous stakeholder engagement was crucial for the success of this assignment, since 
the  stakeholders’  input  in  the  ecosystem  was  key  to  gathering  the  required  data  and 
formulating findings. 

The  data-collection  tools  selected  for  this  study  included:  desk  research,  interviews, 
online  survey,  meetings  and  tertiary  experts.  The  interviews  and  online  survey  are  the 
stakeholder consultation tools of most importance for this synopsis report (v. Annex V).  

3.2.  Data analysis techniques and tools 
To  ensure  the  robustness  of  the  data  and  the  independence  of  the  evaluation,  the  study 
team  performed  data  triangulation  as  the  main  data  analysis  technique,  in  order  to 
conduct  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  evaluation  matrix  and  carry  out  the  case 
studies.  

Once the empirical data had been gathered, triangulation was used to ensure data quality, 
objectivity and relevance. Furthermore, triangulation proved useful when putting together 
the quantitative and qualitative data and ensuring overall coherence of the analysis. The 

43 

 
 
figure below shows the main sources of data feeding into the triangulation exercise (desk 
research, online survey and interviews): 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX 

1.  Evaluation matrix 

In keeping with the Better Regulation Guidelines, this evaluation used the intervention 
logic  (IL)  and  the  evaluation  matrix  (EM)  to  conceptualise  the  key  elements  of  the 
policy  intervention,  design  the  data  collection,  help  to  establish  judgements  and 
conclusions in response to the evaluation questions, and, finally, provide grounds for the 
recommendations as a basis for possible future revisions of the Directive.  

Through dedicated data collection activities and analysis, the study aimed to provide an 
evidence-based answer to the following overarching  questions, matching the evaluation 
criteria: 

•  How effective has the Directive been? (effectiveness criterion);  

•  How efficient has the Directive been? (efficiency criterion);  

•  How relevant is the Directive? (relevance criterion);  

•  What  is  the  added  value  provided  by  addressing  this  issue  via  the  Directive 

compared with an approach at national level? (EU added value criterion); 

•  How  coherent  and  consistent  is  the  Directive  with  other  ongoing  initiatives 

(coherence criterion);  

•  Did  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  its  assessed  impact  respect 

fundamental rights (fundamental rights criterion). 

44 

 
 
 
 
The  Evaluation  Matrix  contained  questions  that  address  the  following  three  levels  of 
evaluation of the Directive: 

•  Evaluation of the Directive itself; 

•  Evaluation of the transposition of the Directive;  

•  Evaluation of the practical implementation of the Directive. 

Beyond the assessment of the Directive’s impact based on the five criteria – as  well as 
the fundamental rights – in accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines and based 
on the analysis and input received from different stakeholders, the study also drew on its 
data  collection  exercises  and  the  case  studies  to  identify  potential  improvements 
regarding  any  legal,  technical,  and  operational  aspects  associated  with  the  Directive.  It 
thus  provided  DG  HOME  with  clear  and  actionable  recommendations.  This  future-
oriented  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  Directive  was  also  included  in  the  evaluation 
matrix.   

Furthermore, three case studies were carried out  in the context of the study, in order to 
provide  additional  insights  into  the  performance  of  the  Directive  and  supplement  the 
overall assessment.  

2.  Effectiveness 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ1: Have the 
Directive’s goals to 
ensure a sufficient 
degree of 
harmonisation of 
the money 
laundering 
offences and 
related penalties 
been achieved? 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ2: Has the 
application of the 
provisions of the 
Directive 
contributed to 
facilitating the 
investigation and 
prosecution of 
money laundering 
in the Member 
States and at EU 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ1.1: To what extent 
have the Member States 
aligned their definitions 
of money laundering 
offences with the 
Directive’s provisions? 

EQ1.2: To what extent 
have the Member States 
aligned the penalties for 
money laundering 
offences with the 
Directive’s provisions? 

• 

• 

Percentage of Member States 
that have incorporated the 
definitions of money 
laundering offences in their 
legal systems 
Existence of legal provisions 
addressing the specific 
aggravating circumstances 
outlined in the Directive 
•  Range of penalties before and 
after the implementation of 
the Directive 
Presence of disparity in 
penalties across Member 
States 

• 

•  Desk research  
• 

Surveys and interviews 
targeted at national 
authorities in EU Member 
States (Financial 
Intelligence Units, law 
enforcement authorities 
and judicial authorities) 
Surveys and interviews 
targeted at international 
organisations (FATF, 
OECD, MONEYVAL, 
GRECO) 

• 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ2.1: To what extent 
has the application of the 
provisions of the 
Directive facilitated the 
investigation of money 
laundering in Member 
States and at EU level? 

•  Number of money laundering 
investigations before and after 
the application of the 
provisions per Member State 
and at EU level 

•  Qualitative assessment by 

stakeholders on the extent to 
which the application of the 
provisions of the Directive 
facilitated the investigation of 
money laundering in the 

45 

• 

• 

Surveys and interviews 
targeted at national 
judicial authorities in EU 
Member States 
Surveys and interviews 
targeted at national law 
enforcement authorities in 
EU Member States 
•  Desk research on public 
resources (country-

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 
level? Have 
Member States 
made sufficient use 
of investigative 
tools available for 
serious and 
organised crime 
cases? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Member States and on EU 
level  

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

specific evaluation 
reports, statistical data) 
Surveys and interviews 
targeted at academic and 
think-tanks 

•  Number of money laundering 
prosecutions before and after 
application of the provisions 
per Member State and at EU 
level 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders with regard to 
prosecutions before and after 
the application of the 
Directive 

•  Number of instances 

investigative tools were used 
per Member State and at EU 
level 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which Member States have 
made use of investigative 
tools for serious and organised 
crime cases  

•  Qualitative input from 

stakeholders on the ways the 
Directive can better facilitate 
investigation and prosecution 
of money laundering offences  

EQ2.2: To what extent 
has the application of the 
provisions of the 
Directive facilitated the 
prosecution of money 
laundering in Member 
States and at EU level? 

EQ2.3: To what extent 
have Member States 
made use of investigative 
tools for serious and 
organised crime cases? 

EQ2.4: What can be 
further done so that the 
Directive and its 
application further 
contribute to facilitating 
the investigation and 
prosecution of money 
laundering offences in the 
Member States and at EU 
level, including greater 
use of investigative tools 
for serios and organised 
crime? 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ3: Have 
provisions 
allowing Member 
States to convict 
for money 
laundering 
offences without 
prior conviction, 
prosecution or 
extensive factual 
establishment of 
the predicate 
offence been 
effectively applied 
in practice, and 
have they 
facilitated the 
prosecution and 
conviction for 
money laundering? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ4.1: To what extent 
have Member States 
applied in practice the 
prosecution for money 
laundering offences 
without prior conviction, 
prosecution or extensive 
factual establishment of 
the predicate offence? 

•  Number of prosecutions for 

• 

money laundering without 
prior conviction, prosecution 
or extensive factual 
establishment of predicate 
offence before and after the 
application of the Directive’s 
provisions 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at EU 
bodies (Eurojust, Europol) 
and international bodies 
(Interpol) 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on extent to 
which Member States have 
applied in practice the 
prosecution for money 
laundering without prior 
conviction, prosecution or 
extensive factual 
establishment of predicate 
offence before and after the 
application of the Directive’s 
provisions 

46 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ4.2: To what extent 
has the conviction for 
money laundering 
offences without prior 
conviction, prosecution 
or extensive factual 
establishment of the 
predicate offences 
facilitated prosecutions 
and convictions for 
money laundering in the 
Member States? 

EQ4.3: To what extent 
have provisions allowing 
Member States to convict 
for money laundering 
offences without prior 
conviction, prosecution 
or extensive factual 
establishment of the 
predicate offence 
contributed to the 
effectiveness of the 
overall AML legal 
framework? 

•  Number of convictions for 
money laundering without 
prior conviction, prosecution 
or extensive factual 
establishment of the predicate 
offence before and after the 
application of the Directive’s 
provisions 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on extent to 
which the convictions for 
money laundering without 
prior conviction, prosecution 
or extensive factual 
establishment of the predicate 
offence has facilitated 
prosecution and convictions 
for money laundering before 
and after the application of the 
Directive’s provisions 
•  Number of money laundering 

convictions before and after 
the entry into force and 
transposition of the Directive, 
in cases where a Member 
State has allowed convictions 
without prior conviction, 
prosecution or extensive 
factual establishment of the 
predicate offence 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the provisions allowing 
Member States to convict for 
money laundering offences 
without prior conviction, 
prosecution or extensive 
factual establishment of the 
predicate offence contributed 
to the effectiveness of the 
overall AML legal framework 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ4: Have the 
provisions of the 
Directive 
facilitated cross 
border as well as 
international 
cooperation? To 
what extent do 
competent 
authorities of the 
Member States 
cooperate with 
each other in 
criminal 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ5.1: To what extent 
have the Directive’s 
provisions facilitated 
cross border cooperation 
among Member States in 
criminal proceedings 
regarding money 
laundering? 

•  Number of cross border and 

• 

international money 
laundering investigations and 
prosecutions before and after 
the entry into force and 
transposition of the Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by 

stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive’s 
provisions facilitated cross 
border cooperation among 
Member States in criminal 
proceedings regarding money 
laundering 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 

47 

 
 
Evaluation 
question 
proceedings 
regarding money 
laundering? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

EQ5.2: To what extent 
have the Directive’s 
provisions facilitated 
international cooperation 
in criminal proceedings 
regarding money 
laundering? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive’s 
provisions facilitated 
international cooperation in 
criminal proceedings 
regarding money laundering 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at EU 
bodies (Eurojust, Europol) 
and international bodies 
(Interpol) 

EQ5.3: To what extent do 
Member States cooperate 
with each other in 
criminal proceedings 
regarding money 
laundering in accordance 
with national legislation 
and the existing Union 
legal framework? 

EQ5.5: To what extent 
have the Directive’s 
provisions facilitated the 
effective and timely 
information exchange in 
criminal proceedings 
regarding money 
laundering? 

EQ5.4: In what ways 
could the effectiveness of 
the Directive be 
improved to further 
enhance the effective and 
timely cross border and 
international exchange of 
information and 
cooperation? 

•  Number of cross border and 
international forms of 
cooperation in criminal 
proceedings regarding money 
laundering before and after 
the entry into force and 
transposition of the Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by 

stakeholders on the extent to 
which Member States 
cooperate with each other in 
criminal proceedings 
regarding money laundering 
in accordance with national 
legislation and the existing 
Union legal framework 
following the entry into force 
and transposition of the 
Directive 

•  Number of information 

exchange requests before and 
after the entry into force and 
transposition of the Directive 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive’s 
provisions facilitated the 
effective and timely 
information exchange in 
criminal proceedings 
regarding money laundering 

can  be 

•  Qualitative  assessment  from 
stakeholders  on  the  way  the 
Directive 
further 
improved  to  further  enhance 
the  effective  and  timely  cross 
border 
international 
exchange  of  information  and 
cooperation 

and 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ: Are there 
remaining 
obstacles regarding 
the criminalisation 
of “self-
laundering” in 
certain cases? 
What has been the 
effectiveness and 
impact of the 
criminalisation of 
self-laundering in 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ6.1:  What have been 
the key challenges or 
successes encountered in 
the implementation of 
self-laundering? 
EQ6.2:  To what extent 
has the criminalisation of 
self-laundering 
contributed to deterring 
individuals and entities 
from engaging in money 
laundering? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the presence 
of any challenges in relation 
to the implementation of self-
laundering 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the criminalisation of 
self-laundering has 
contributed to deterring 
individuals and entities from 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 

48 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 
the EU Member 
States, and how 
has this contributed 
to the broader 
efforts in 
combating money 
laundering and 
related financial 
crimes? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

engaging in money laundering 
after the implementation of 
the Directive 

• 

States 
Surveys and interviews 
targeted at EU bodies 
(e.g., Eurojust, Europol) 

EQ6.3:  To what extent 
has the criminalisation of 
self-laundering led to 
enhanced collaboration 
and exchange of 
information between the 
Member States?  

EQ6.4: To what extent 
has the criminalisation of 
self-laundering led to 
greater or lower number 
of money laundering 
prosecutions? 

EQ 6.5: To what extent 
has the criminalisation of 
self-laundering led to 
greater or lower number 
of money laundering 
convictions? 

EQ 6.6: How can the 
Directive be further 
improved to close any 
gaps in cases where the 
prosecution of self-
laundering does not lead 
to a conviction? 

•  Number of exchanges of 

information and collaboration 
requests in relation to self-
laundering before and after 
the entry into force and the 
transposition of the Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by 

stakeholders on the extent to 
which the criminalisation of 
self-laundering led to 
enhanced collaboration and 
exchange of information 
between the Member States 
•  Number of “self-laundering” 
prosecutions before and after 
the entry into force and 
transposition of the Directive 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the criminalisation of 
self-laundering led to change 
in number of the money 
laundering prosecutions after 
the implementation of the 
Directive 

•  Number of “self-laundering” 
convictions before and after 
the entry into force and 
transposition of the Directive 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the criminalisation of 
self-laundering led to change 
in number of money 
laundering convictions after 
the implementation of the 
Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the ways to 
further improve the Directive 
with regard to ‘’self-
laundering’’ provisions 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ7: Has the 
implementation of 
the Directive 
resulted in 
confiscation of 
property deriving 
from activities of a 
criminal nature, 
including in the 
absence of a 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

EQ7.1: To what extent 
has the implementation of 
the Directive led to 
confiscation of property 
derived from criminal 
activities, including in the 
absence of a conviction 
of a specific person or 
persons for those 
activities? 

•  Value of confiscated property 
derived from criminal activity 
before and after the entry into 
force and the transposition of 
the Directive 

•  Value of confiscated property 
derived from criminal activity 
in case of non-conviction 
before and after the entry into 
force and the transposition of 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 

49 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 
conviction of a 
specific person or 
persons for those 
activities? If yes, 
and if applicable, 
what was the share 
of non-conviction-
based confiscation 
proceedings? If 
not, what are the 
key obstacles 
hindering the 
implementation of 
such confiscation 
measures?  

Effectiveness 
EQ8: To what 
extent have 
Member States 
implemented 
optional provisions 
(“may clauses”) of 
the Directive? 
What positive 
impact does it have 
in the fight against 
money laundering 
and cross border 
cooperation? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

the Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the implementation of 
the Directive led to 
confiscation of property 
derived from criminal 
activities, including in the 
absence of a conviction of a 
specific person or persons for 
those activities 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the presence 
of any challenges in relation 
to the confiscation of 
property, including non-
conviction-based confiscation 
Indication of specific 
challenges and successes with 
regard to the confiscation of 
property, including non-
conviction-based confiscation 

• 

•  Number of initiations and 

executions of non-conviction-
based confiscations 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive has led to 
the initiation and execution of 
non-conviction-based 
confiscation 

•  Qualitative  assessment  by  the 
stakeholders  on  the  ways  to 
further  improve  the  Directive 
with  regard  to  confiscation  of 
property 
from 
criminal  activity,  including  in 
the context of non-conviction-
based confiscation 

derived 

• 

• 

List of Member States which 
have implemented optional 
provisions 

List of optional provisions 
implemented per Member 
State 

•  Qualitative assessment on the 
degree of alignment of the 
optional provisions across the 
Member States 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the introduction of 
optional provisions (‘’may 

50 

EQ7.2: To what extent 
has the Directive 
contributed to greater 
challenges or successes in 
relation to confiscation of 
property derived from 
criminal activities, 
including in the absence 
of a conviction of a 
specific person or persons 
for those activities? What 
are those challenges and 
successes? 
EQ7.3:  To what extent 
has the Directive led to 
the initiation and 
execution of non-
conviction-based 
confiscation? 

EQ7.4: How can the 
Directive be further 
improved to overcome 
challenges in relation to 
the confiscation of 
property derived from 
criminal activity, 
including in the context 
of non-conviction-based 
confiscation?   

EQ8.1: Which Member 
States have implemented 
optional provisions 
(“may clauses”) of the 
Directive? 
EQ8.2: What specific 
optional provisions 
within the Directive have 
been implemented by the 
Member States?  
EQ8.2: To what extent 
are the optional 
provisions (“may 
clauses”) of the Directive 
aligned across Member 
States? 
EQ8.3: To what extent 
has the introduction of 
optional provisions 
(‘’may clauses’’) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
judicial authorities in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 
interviews with DGs 

 
 
 
 
contributed to cross-
border cooperation and 
exchange of information 
within the European 
Union? 
EQ8.4:  To what extent 
has the introduction of 
the optional provisions of 
the Directive (‘’may 
clauses’’) impacted the 
operational capacities of 
law enforcement 
agencies? 
EQ8.5: To what extent 
has the introduction of 
the optional provisions of 
the Directive (‘’may 
clauses’’) impacted the 
work of the judiciary 
(i.e., the jurisprudence)?  

EQ8.6: What are the 
main challenges and 
obstacles identified by 
Member States in the 
implementation of the 
optional provisions 
(‘’may clauses)’’? 
EQ8.7: How can the 
Directive be further 
improved to overcome 
any challenges or 
obstacles in relation to 
the implementation of the 
optional provisions of the 
Directive (‘’may 
clauses’’)? 

clauses’’) contributed to 
cross-border cooperation and 
exchange of information 
within the European Union  

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the introduction of the 
optional provisions of the 
Directive (‘’may clauses’’) 
impacted the operational 
capacities of law enforcement 
agencies 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the introduction of the 
optional provisions of the 
Directive (‘’may clauses’’) 
impacted the work of the 
judiciary (i.e., the 
jurisprudence) 
The presence of any 
challenges in the 
implementation of the 
optional provisions of the 
Directive (‘’may clauses’’) 

• 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the ways to 
overcome any challenges or 
obstacles in relation to the 
implementation of the 
optional provisions of the 
Directive (‘’may clauses’’) 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

EQ9.1:  What specific 
national legislative 
measures were already in 
place prior to the 
adoption of the Directive, 
and to what extent has the 
entry into force and the 
transposition of the 
Directive impacted or 
complemented these 
existing measures? 

EQ9.2:  To what extent 
did the integration of the 
new provisions of the 
Directive with pre-
existing national 
legislative measures 

• 

• 

List of Member States that 
had already national 
legislative measures in place 
prior to the adoption of the 
Directive 
List of national legislative 
measures already in place 
before the adoption of the 
Directive 

• 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the entry into force and 
the transposition of the 
Directive has impacted or 
complemented these existing 
measures 
State of overall effectiveness 
of the combination of pre and 
post existing measures 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the integration of the 
new provisions of the 
Directive with pre-existing 
national legislative measures 

51 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ9:  Regarding 
the application of 
the new provisions 
of the Directive, to 
what extent were 
any legislative 
national measures 
already in place 
before the adoption 
of the Directive? 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

contribute to the 
enhancement of the 
regulatory framework 
and in what way?  

contributed to the 
enhancement of the overall 
regulatory framework 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the way the 
integration of the new 
provisions of the Directive 
with pre-existing national 
legislative measures 
contributed to the 
enhancement of the overall 
regulatory framework 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ10: To what 
extent and why is 
the level of 
effectiveness of the 
relevant provisions 
of the Directive 
different in the 
different Member 
States? 

EQ9.3: To what extent 
have any national 
legislative measures or 
good practices, which 
were previously effective, 
become ineffective or 
significantly restricted 
following the 
implementation of the 
Directive (if any)? 

•  Qualitative  assessment  by  the 
stakeholders  on  the  extent  (if 
any)  to  which  any  national 
legislative  measures  or  good 
practices, 
were 
previously  effective,  become 
significantly 
ineffective  or 
the 
restricted 
the 
implementation 
Directive 

following 
of 

which 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ10.1: To what extent 
are the relevant 
provisions of the 
Directive effective in 
each Member State? 
EQ10.2: To what extent 
does the level of 
effectiveness of the 
relevant provisions differ 
between each Member 
State? 
EQ10.3: What are the 
reasons for the 
differences in 
effectiveness between 
Member States? 
EQ10.4: How can the 
Directive be further 
improved to increase the 
level of effectiveness 
across the EU? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the relevant provisions 
of the Directive are effective 
in each Member State  
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the level of 
effectiveness of the relevant 
provisions differs between 
each Member State 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the reasons 
for the differences in the 
effectiveness between the 
Member States  

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the ways the 
Directive can be further 
improved to increase the level 
of effectiveness across the EU 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys  targeted  at  Asset 
Recovery  Offices  in  EU 
Member States 
Surveys  and 
interviews 
targeted  at  EU  bodies 
(e.g., Europol, Eurojust) 
Surveys 
stakeholders 
academic and think-tank) 

other 
(e.g., 

to 

Evaluation 
question 
Effectiveness 
EQ11: Are there 
any shortcomings 
in the 
implementation or 
regulatory gaps in 
the Directive that 
hinder the effective 
combating of 
money laundering 
from a criminal 
justice perspective? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ11.1: To what extent 
are there any operational 
or technical shortcomings 
in the implementation of 
the Directive that hinder 
the effective combating 
of money laundering 
from a criminal justice 
perspective? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the presence 
of any operational or technical 
shortcomings in the 
implementation of the 
Directive that hinder the 
effective combating of money 
laundering from a criminal 
justice perspective Number of 
shortcomings in the 
implementation of the 
Directive 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at EU 
agencies and bodies 
Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 

52 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ11.2: To what extent 
are there any regulatory 
gaps in the Directive that 
hinder the effective 
combating of money 
laundering from a 
criminal justice 
perspective? 
EQ11.3: To what extent 
and in what ways do any 
shortcomings in the 
implementation of the 
Directive and regulatory 
gaps impact reaching 
convictions for money 
laundering? 

EQ11.4: To what extent 
do differences in the 
implementation of money 
laundering offences in the 
national law of the 
Member States create 
dual criminality issues 
that impact the overall 
effectiveness of the 
Directive?  
EQ11.5: To what extent 
do differences in the 
national law of the 
Member States between 
money laundering, tax 
fraud and tax evasion 
impose limitations on the 
effective investigation, 
prosecution and 
conviction of money 
laundering? 
EQ11.6: How can the 
Directive be further 
improved to address any 
other shortcomings in its 
implementation in order 
to optimise its 
effectiveness?  

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which there are regulatory 
gaps in the Directive that 
hinder the effective combating 
of money laundering from a 
criminal justice perspective 

• 

• 

Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at 
academics and think-tanks 

•  Desk research  

•  Qualitative  assessment  by  the 
stakeholders  on  the  extent  to 
which any shortcomings in the 
implementation 
the 
Directive  and  regulatory  gaps 
impact  reaching  convictions 
for money-laundering 

of 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the ways in 
which any shortcomings in the 
implementation of the 
Directive and regulatory gaps 
impact reaching convictions 
for money laundering 

•  Qualitative  assessment  by  the 
stakeholders  on  extent 
to 
which  any  issues  related  to 
dual  criminality  of  money 
laundering 
the 
effective 
implementation  of 
the Directive 

impact 

•  Qualitative  assessment  by  the 
stakeholders  on  the  extent  to 
which  the  differences  in  the 
national  law  of  the  Member 
States 
money 
between 
laundering,  tax  fraud  and  tax 
evasion  (if  any)  impact  the 
effective 
investigation, 
prosecution  and  conviction  of 
money laundering 

•  Qualitative  assessment  by  the 
stakeholders on how to further 
improve 
to 
address  any  shortcomings  in 
its implementation 

the  Directive 

3.  Efficiency 

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines on evaluation, the efficiency criterion aims 
to assess whether the activities evaluated are delivering their objectives at minimum costs 
and while avoiding unnecessary costs or burdens. This means that the evaluation looks at 
the  relationship  between  the  costs  deriving  from  the  implementation  of  Directive  (EU) 
2018/1673  and  the  outcomes  and  results  it  has  generated  in  each  country  and  per 
the 
stakeholder  following 
implementation  of  activities  across  the  Member  States,  the  project  team  also  looked  at 

there  are  differences  between 

transposition.  As 

the 

53 

 
 
how the implementation differs between the countries and whether some approaches are 
more  efficient  than  other.  The  analysis  of  efficiency  covered  administrative  and 
adjustment  costs,  aspects  of  simplification  and  a  cost-benefit  comparison  by  Member 
State.  

Evaluation 
question 
Efficiency  
EQ13: What are 
the 
implementation 
costs and the 
benefits of the 
Directive – in the 
individual 
Member States 
and overall? Are 
there differences 
between Member 
States and what 
causes them? 
What are the 
administrative 
costs and benefits 
of the Directive 
for citizens and 
businesses? 

Evaluation 
question 
Efficiency  
EQ14: Have the 
results that can be 
attributed to the 
Directive been 
achieved at a 
reasonable cost? Is 
the regulatory 
burden placed on 
Member States by 
the 
implementation of 
the Directive 
proportional to the 
observed results? 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at other 
stakeholders 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 

• 

Surveys targeted at Asset 

• 

• 

Recovery Offices in EU 

Member States 
Surveys targeted at other 
stakeholders 
Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 
interviews with DGs 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

EQ13.1: What are the 
implementation costs 
(including costs for 
citizens and businesses) 
of the Directive for each 
Member State and 
overall? 
EQ13.2: What are the 
causes of the differences 
in the implementation 
costs between Member 
States? 
EQ13.3: What are the 
benefits (including 
benefits for citizens and 
businesses) of 
implementing the 
Directive for each 
Member State and 
overall? 
EQ13.4: What are the 
causes of the benefits of 
the implementation of 
the Directive between 
Member States? 

• 

Estimation by stakeholders 
on the costs expressed in 
monetary value of the 
implementation of the 
Directive per Member State 
and overall 

•  Qualitative assessment on the 

causes of the differences in 
the implementation cost 
between Member States 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the benefits 
expressed in monetary value 
of the implementation of the 
Directive per Member State 
and overall 

•  Qualitative assessment on the 

causes of the benefits in the 
implementation cost between 
Member States 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

EQ14.1:  To what extent 
do the costs associated 
with the implementation 
and enforcement of the 
Directive compare to the 
achieved outcomes in 
terms of the prevention 
and deterrence of money 
laundering activities 
within the European 
Union?  

EQ14.2:  What specific 
financial, administrative, 
and resource-related 
challenges have Member 
States encountered 

•  Qualitative assessment, 

including by stakeholders, on 
the ratio of costs to benefits 
per Member State 

•  Number of FTEs per Member 
State competent authorities 
needed to implement the 
Directive 
Financial costs per Member 
State in relation to the 
implementation of the 
Directive 

• 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the costs associated 
with the implementation and 
enforcement of the Directive 
compared to the achieved 
outcomes in terms of the 
prevention and deterrence of 
money laundering activities 
within the European Union 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the financial, 
administrative, and resource-
related challenges faced by 
Member States in the 

54 

 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

implementation of the 
Directive 
List of financial, 
administrative, and resource-
related challenges faced by 
Member States in the 
implementation of the 
Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent 
these challenges impacted the 
overall efficiency and 
effectiveness of anti-money 
laundering measures 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the 
regulatory burden of the 
Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the ways the 
regulatory burden on 
Member States stemming 
from the implementation of 
the Directive affected their 
capacity to meet other 
regulatory obligations and 
effectively address emerging 
financial crime threats 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the measures 
or adjustments needed with 
regard to the implementation 
of the Directive in order to 
minimise regulatory burden, 
streamline regulatory 
requirements, optimise 
resource allocation while 
maintaining robust anti-
money laundering standards 
and achieving the desired 
results outlined in the 
Directive 

• 

Survey  at  EU  bodies  and 
agencies,  incl.  discovery 
interviews with DGs 

during the 
implementation of the 
Directive, and to what 
extent have these 
challenges impacted the 
overall efficiency and 
effectiveness of anti-
money laundering 
measures? 

EQ14.3:  How has the 
regulatory burden on 
Member States, 
stemming from the 
implementation of the 
Directive, affected their 
capacity to meet other 
regulatory obligations 
and effectively address 
emerging financial crime 
threats?  

EQ14.4: What measures 
or adjustments with 
regard to the 
implementation of the 
Directive can be 
undertaken to ensure a 
balanced approach that 
minimises unnecessary 
regulatory burden, 
streamlines regulatory 
requirements, optimises 
resource allocation while 
maintaining robust anti-
money laundering 
standards and achieving 
the desired results 
outlined in the 
Directive?  
EQ15.1: Which elements 
of the implementation of 
the Directive represent 
an outsized 
administrative burden? 

EQ15: Is there a 
potential to 
simplify or reduce 
administrative 
burden (including 
monitoring and 
reporting) without 
undermining the 
intended 
objectives of the 
Directive? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

• 

stakeholders on 
administratively burdensome 
elements of the 
implementation of the 
Directive 
List of administrative 
burdens associated with the 
implementation of the 
Directive as identified by 
stakeholders 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at other 
stakeholders 
Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

EQ15.2: Is there scope to 
simplify those elements 
which represent an 
outsized administrative 
burden without reducing 
the desired benefits? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on 
simplification of 
administratively burdensome 
elements which would not 
undermine the objectives of 
the Directive 

55 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

interviews with DGs 

4.  Relevance 

Evaluation 
question 
Relevance  
EQ17:  To what 
extent does the EU 
Directive 
2018/1673 address 
current and future 
threats and needs 
concerning the 
development of 
organised crime, 
particularly 
focusing on 
evolving money 
laundering 
activities outlined 
in the 2021 
Serious and 
Organised Crime 
Threat Assessment 
(SOCTA)? How 
can the provisions 
be enhanced to 
effectively 
respond to recent 
developments and 
anticipated trends, 
including criminal 
networks’ 
displacement of 
money laundering 
attempts to 
underground 
remittance 
systems, increased 
use of virtual 
currencies, and the 
exploitation of 
non-fungible 
tokens (NFTs) for 
money laundering 
purposes? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

• 

•  Desk research based on 
the 2021 SOCTA report 
and other publications by 
relevant authorities and 
research papers 
Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at other 
stakeholders 
Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 
interviews with DGs 

• 

• 

• 

• 

EQ17.1: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address current and 
future threats and needs 
related to cybercrime as 
outlined in the 2021 
SOCTA? 
EQ17.2: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to the trade in 
illegal drugs in the EU as 
outlined in the 2021 
SOCTA? 
EQ17.3: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to environmental 
crime as outlined in the 
2021 SOCTA? 
EQ17.4: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to the trade in 
illegal firearms and 
explosives as outlined in 
the 2021 SOCTA? 
EQ17.5: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to fraud as 
outlined in the 2021 
SOCTA? 
EQ17.6: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to match fixing 
and betting-related 
scams as outlined in the 
2021 SOCTA? 
EQ17.7: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to “people as a 
commodity” as outlined 
in the 2021 SOCTA? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats of cyber 
crime  

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to illegal drug trade 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to environmental 
crime 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to the trade in illegal 
firearms and explosives 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to fraud 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to match fixing and 
betting-related scams 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to “people as a 
commodity” 

56 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ17.8: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to document 
fraud as outlined in the 
2021 SOCTA? 
EQ17.9: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to product 
counterfeiting and 
intellectual property 
crime as outlined in the 
2021 SOCTA? 
EQ17.10: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to currency 
counterfeiting as 
outlined in the 2021 
SOCTA? 
EQ17.11: To what extent 
does the Directive 
address the current and 
future threats and needs 
related to organised 
property crime as 
outlined in the 2021 
SOCTA? 
EQ17.12: To what extent 
are the provisions still 
appropriate and 
sufficient to respond to 
recent developments and 
anticipated trends such 
as the response by 
criminal networks 
displacing money 
laundering attempts to 
underground remittance 
systems? 
EQ17.13: To what extent 
are the provisions still 
appropriate and 
sufficient to respond to 
recent developments and 
anticipated trends related 
to the use of virtual 
currencies and the 
tokenisation economy 
(such as NFTs)? 
EQ17.14: How can the 
Directive be further 
enhanced to better 
address the emerging 
trends and techniques 
observed in organised 
crime as well as new 
threats identified in 
SOCTA 2021? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to document fraud 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to product 
counterfeiting and 
intellectual property crime 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to currency 
counterfeiting 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
alignment of the Directive’s 
provisions with the current 
and future threats and needs 
related to organised property 
crime 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
relevance of the Directive’s 
provisions with the 
anticipated trends in money 
laundering via underground 
remittance systems 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
relevance of the Directive’s 
provisions with the 
anticipated trends in money 
laundering via virtual 
currencies 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on how to 
improve the Directive to 
better address the new threats 
and the emerging trends and 
techniques observed in 
organised crime  

57 

 
 
Evaluation 
question 
Relevance  
EQ18: Are there 
provisions 
contained in the 
Directive that 
might be 
considered 
obsolete or 
provisions that 
should be aligned 
due to certain 
developments (for 
example: Proposal 
for a Directive on 
asset recovery and 
confiscation as 
well as sanction 
evasion)? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ18.1:  Which specific 
provisions within the 
Directive may no longer 
effectively address the 
current challenges posed 
by emerging forms of 
financial crime, and 
what amendments or 
revisions could be 
proposed to enhance 
their efficacy and 
alignment with 
contemporary regulatory 
standards and practices? 

EQ18.2:  In what ways 
can the Directive be 
better harmonised with 
the proposed measures 
outlined in the Directive 
on asset recovery and 
confiscation and other 
relevant initiatives, e.g., 
sanction evasion? 

EQ18.3: Are there 
provisions that might be 
considered obsolete or 
need to be aligned due to 
any other changes? 

•  Qualitative assessment from 

•  Desk research analysing 

evolutions in the financial 
crime trends and the 
regulatory landscape  
Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at other 
stakeholders 
Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 
interviews with DGs 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

stakeholders on the 
provisions of the Directive 
that may no longer 
effectively address the 
current challenges posed by 
emerging forms of financial 
crime 

•  Qualitative input from 

stakeholders on points of 
improvement of the 
Directive’s provisions that 
may no longer effectively 
address the current 
challenges posed by 
emerging forms of financial 
crime 

•  Qualitative input from 

stakeholders on points of 
improvement of the Directive 
for further alignment with the 
proposed measures outlined 
in the Directive on asset 
recovery and confiscation 
and other relevant initiatives 
(e.g., the AML package, 
sanction evasion) 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the 
provisions which could be 
considered obsolete due to 
other changes 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the 
provisions which might 
require alignment due to 
other changes 

Evaluation 
question 
Relevance  
EQ19: Are there 
other remaining 
obstacles/legal and 
practical issues in 
the fight against 
money laundering 
identified by 
relevant 
stakeholders such 
as EUROJUST or 
FATF that are not 
sufficiently 
addressed or taken 
into account in the 
Directive? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ19.1: Are there any 
legal issues in the fight 
against money 
laundering identified by 
relevant stakeholders 
such as EUROJUST or 
FATF which are not 
sufficiently addressed in 
the Directive? 

EQ19.2: Are there any 
practical issues in the 
fight against money 
laundering identified by 
relevant stakeholders 
such as EUROJUST or 
FATF which are not 
sufficiently addressed in 
the Directive? 

• 

List of unaddressed legal 
issues in the Directive as 
identified by relevant 
stakeholders 

• 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

• 

stakeholders on the 
importance of the 
unaddressed legal issues to 
the overall effectiveness of 
the Directive 
List of unaddressed practical 
issues in the Directive as 
identified by relevant 
stakeholders 

• 

•  Qualitative assessment from 

stakeholders on the 
importance of the 
unaddressed practical issues 
to the overall effectiveness of 
the Directive 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at 
international bodies 
Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 
interviews with DGs 

58 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 
• 

Surveys at other 
stakeholders 

5.  Coherence 

In  accordance with  the  Better  regulation  guidelines, the evaluation  of coherence entails 
assessing  how  well  different  interventions  work  together  and  are  consistent  with  each 
other.  The  coherence  evaluation  criterion  is  twofold:  internal  and  external.  On  the  one 
hand, internal coherence means looking at how the different components of the same EU 
intervention (the CMLD, in this case) operate together to achieve its objectives. On the 
other  hand,  external  coherence  examines  how  different  interventions  complement  each 
other (e.g. assessing whether there are synergies, but also duplication or overlaps). This 
section will thus focus first on the internal consistency of the CMLD and then study the 
external consistency of this legal instrument.  

Evaluation 
question 
Coherence 
EQ20: Is the 
Directive coherent 
with developments 
in the international 
context including 
as international 
agreements, 
frameworks etc.? 

Evaluation 
question 
Coherence 
EQ21: Is the 
Directive coherent 
with other relevant 
EU acts? In 
particular to what 
extent does the 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

•  Desk research  
• 

Surveys and interviews 
with relevant 
stakeholders (FATF, 
OECD, MONEYVAL, 
TI) 
Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 
interviews with DGs 

• 

EQ20.1: To what extent 
does the Directive lay 
down rules in line with 
international frameworks 
and standards, such as 
2003 United Nations 
Convention against 
Transnational Organised 
Crime (Palermo 
Convention), 2005 
Warsaw Convention, the 
FATF Recommendations 
etc.? 
EQ20.2: What steps can 
be taken to address any 
inconsistencies or 
conflicts between the 
Directive and other 
relevant international 
instruments? 

•  Degree of alignment between 
the Directive and relevant 
international 
frameworks/standards with 
regard to provisions on the 
criminalisation of money 
laundering, asset freezing and 
confiscation as well as 
international cooperation 

•  Qualitative input from 

stakeholders on possible 
ways for further alignment of 
the Directive with relevant 
international instruments 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ21.1: To what extent 
does the Directive 
complement and 
reinforce existing EU 
acts such as the 
Directive 2014/42/EU on 

•  Degree of alignment between 
the Directive and relevant EU 
acts  

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive has a 

59 

•  Desk research  
• 

Survey at EU bodies and 
agencies, incl. discovery 
interviews with DGs  
Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 

• 

 
 
 
 
Data collection methods & 
sources 

authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at other 
stakeholders 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Evaluation 
question 
Directive usefully 
complement and 
reinforce the 
preventative 
money laundering 
provisions in light 
of recent 
developments? Is 
this the case for 
the Directive 
2014/42/EU of the 
European 
Parliament and of 
the Council of 3 
April 2014 on the 
freezing and 
confiscation of 
instrumentalities 
and proceeds of 
crime in the 
European Union as 
well as Proposal 
for a Directive on 
asset recovery and 
confiscation? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

positive impact on the 
existing legislative initiatives 
currently going on in the EU 
level 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on how to 
improve the Directive to 
better compliment or 
reinforce the objectives 
outlined in the Directive 
2014/42/EU and the Proposal 
for a Directive on asset 
recovery and confiscation 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholder stakeholders on 
the extent to which the 
Directive has a positive 
impact on the existing 
initiatives on EU level to 
strengthen the EU’s AML 
rules 

the freezing and 
confiscation of 
instrumentalities and 
proceeds of crime in the 
EU?  

EQ21.2: In what ways 
can the Directive better 
complement and 
reinforce the objectives 
outlined in the Directive 
2014/42/EU and the 
Proposal for a Directive 
on asset recovery and 
confiscation? 
 EQ21.3: To what extent 
does the Directive 
complement and 
reinforce other existing 
initiatives at the EU 
level, (e.g., Regulation 
(EU) 2023/1114 
(MiCA), Regulation 
(EU) 2023/1113 for 
information 
accompanying Transfer 
of Funds, Directive 
2019/1153 on the use of 
financial and other 
information for certain 
criminal offences, 
Directive (EU) 2023/977 
on the exchange of 
information between law 
enforcement authorities 
of Member States)? 

6.  EU added value 

As described in Tool #47 of the Better Regulation Guidelines, the criterion of EU added 
value looks for changes that are due to the EU intervention, over and above what could 
reasonably have been expected from national actions by the Member State. As outlined 
within Article 5 of the Treaty on EU on the principle of subsidiarity, EU action is only 
desirable  when  the  objectives  of  legislative  action  can  be  better  achieved  by  the  EU 
rather than by the Member States.   

Evaluation 
question 
EU Added Value 

EQ22: To what 
extent has the 
Directive generated 
EU added value as 
opposed to what 
could have been 
achieved by 
Member States on 
their own (also 
taking into account 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

EQ22.1:  To what extent 
have specific legal, 
technical, and 
operational advantages 
been realised at the EU 
level as a result of the 
implementation of the 
EU Directive 
2018/1673, in 
comparison to the 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive provides 
added value in the fight 
against money laundering as 
compared to potential 
outcomes from the Member 
States’ individual approach 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU 
Member States 
Surveys targeted at 

60 

 
 
Evaluation 
question 
their requirements 
under international 
law and standards 
such as the 
Warsaw 
Convention or 
FATF 
recommendations)? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

potential outcomes if 
Member States had 
acted independently? 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

Financial Intelligence 
Units in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 

• 

EQ22.2: To what extent 
has the Directive 
provided additional 
incentive to Member 
States in the fight 
against money 
laundering compared to 
what has been required 
under their international 
law obligations? 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive provided 
additional incentive to 
Member States in the fight 
against money laundering as 
compared to relevant 
obligations under 
international law 

7.  Fundamental rights 

According to the Better Regulation Guidelines there is the option of including additional 
criteria for the sake of the study, including an evaluation of fundamental rights. from the 
study is also based on Article 14(2) of Directive (EU) 2018/1673, which stipulates that 
the  evaluation  will  also  look  at  the  instrument’s  impact  on  fundamental  rights  and 
freedoms.  According  to  Tool#29  from  the  Better  Regulation  Toolbox  2023  policy 
options can have both positive and negative effects on fundamental rights. Furthermore, 
in  the case of adverse effects, effects any limitations  to  fundamental  rights can only  be 
justified if they meet the requirement of necessity and proportionality. 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Surveys targeted at think-
thanks, academic 
institutions 
Surveys targeted at 
national judicial 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
national law enforcement 
authorities in EU Member 
States 
Surveys targeted at 
Financial Intelligence 
Units 
Surveys targeted at Asset 
Recovery Offices in EU 
Member States 
Survey targeted at EU 
bodies and agencies (e.g., 
FRA) 

Evaluation 
question 
Fundamental Rights 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

EQ25: What has 
been the impact of 
the 
implementation of 
the Directive on 
fundamental rights 
and freedoms as 
enshrined in the 
Charter of 
Fundamental 
Rights of the 
European Union, 
including those set 
out in Titles II, III, 
V and VI which 
encompass, inter 
alia, the right to 
respect for private 
and family life and 
the right to 
protection of 
personal data, the 
right to freedom of 
association, the 
right to property, 
the principles of 
legality and 

EQ25.1:  How has the 
implementation of the 
Directive affected the 
protection of private and 
family life, as well as the 
safeguarding of personal 
data, in accordance with 
the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union? 
EQ25.2:  To what extent 
has the Directive 
impacted the freedom of 
association among 
individuals and 
organisations, 
considering the 
provisions outlined in 
the relevant sections of 
the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union? 
EQ25.3: In what ways 
has the Directive 
impacted the respect of 
principles such as 
legality and 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the impact of 
the Directive on fundamental 
rights and freedoms as 
enshrined in the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the directive impacted 
the freedom of association 
among individuals and 
organisations 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the ways in 
which the Directive impacted 
the principles of legality and 
proportionality of criminal 

61 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 
proportionality of 
criminal offences 
and penalties, 
covering also the 
requirement of 
precision, clarity 
and foreseeability 
in criminal law, 
the presumption of 
innocence, as well 
as the rights of 
suspects and 
accused persons to 
have access to a 
lawyer, the right 
not to incriminate 
oneself and the 
right to a fair trial? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

proportionality of 
criminal offences and 
penalties, including 
aspects related to 
precision, clarity, and 
foreseeability in criminal 
law, as stipulated in the 
Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European 
Union? 
EQ25.4: What effects 
has the implementation 
of the Directive had on 
upholding the 
presumption of 
innocence and ensuring 
the rights of suspects and 
accused persons, such as 
the right to access legal 
representation, the right 
not to self-incriminate, 
and the right to a fair 
trial, in accordance with 
the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union? 

EQ25.5: In what ways 
could the Directive be 
further improved to 
ensure or enhance the 
protection of these 
rights? 

EQ26.1: To what extent 
does the implementation 
of the Directive align 
with the provisions 
outlined in the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union, 
specifically concerning 
the rights and principles 
related to the Directive’s 
scope and application? 
EQ26.2:  How 
effectively has the 
implementation of the 
Directive adhered to the 
standards and principles 
set forth in the European 
Convention for the 
Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, particularly in 
the context of the 
protection of 

offences and penalties 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the effects of 
the Directive in upholding 
the presumption of innocence 
•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the effects of 
the Directive in upholding 
the rights of suspects and 
accused persons 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the effects of 
the Directive in upholding 
the right to access legal 
representation 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the effects of 
the Directive in upholding 
the right not to self-
incriminate 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the effects of 
the Directive in upholding 
the right to a fair trial 

•  Qualitative input by 

stakeholders on the way the 
Directive can be further 
improved to safeguard the 
fundamental rights and 
freedoms as enshrined in the 
Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the EU 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent to 
which the Directive has been 
implemented in accordance 
with human rights obligations 
under European law   

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on whether the 
Directive has been 
implemented in accordance 
with human rights obligations 
under the European 
Convention for the Protection 
of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms 

62 

• 

• 

• 

Survey targeting think-
tanks/academic 
institutions  
Survey targeted at other 
stakeholders (e.g., 
ECBA) 
Survey targeted at EU 
bodies and agencies (e.g., 
EPPO, FRA, Eurojust, 
Europol) 

 
 
Evaluation 
question 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

fundamental rights 
during the enforcement 
and implementation of 
the Directive? 
EQ26.3: In what ways 
has the implementation 
of the Directive 
demonstrated 
compliance with the 
provisions stipulated in 
the International 
Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights, 
considering the 
obligations under this 
international human 
rights instrument and 
their impact on the 
Directive’s enforcement? 
EQ26.4: What measures 
have been taken to 
ensure that the 
implementation of the 
Directive aligns with 
other human rights 
obligations under 
international law, and 
how has this affected the 
Directive’s overall 
application and 
enforcement across 
Member States of the 
European Union? 
EQ26.5: In what ways 
could the Directive be 
further enhanced to 
ensure that its legal 
provisions and 
implementation align 
more effectively with 
international human 
rights obligations and 
standards, promoting a 
balanced approach to 
combating criminal 
activities while 
safeguarding individual 
rights? 
EQ27.1: Which 
provisions of the 
Directive lead to direct 
impact on the 
fundamental rights and 
freedoms? 

EQ27: To what 
extent and why 
can any observed 
impact on 
fundamental rights 
and freedoms be 
directly attributed 
to the Directive 
(and specific 
provisions) or to 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on whether the 
Directive has been 
implemented in accordance 
with human rights obligations 
under the International 
Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights 

• 

List  of  measures  adopted  to 
ensure  alignment  with  other 
human 
obligations 
rights 
under international law 
•  Qualitative  assessment  by 
stakeholders on the impact of 
the 
these  measures 
Directive’s 
overall 
application  and  enforcement 
across EU Member States 

on 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on how to 
improve the Directive to 
enhance its alignment with 
international human rights 
obligations and promote a 
balanced approach while 
combating criminal activities 

• 

List of provisions of the 
Directive that have a direct 
impact on fundamental rights 
and freedoms 

• 

• 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on the extent of 
the Directive’s impact on the 
fundamental rights and 
freedoms 

Survey targeted at other 
stakeholders (e.g., 
ECBA) 
Survey targeted at EU 
bodies and agencies (e.g., 
EPPO, FRA, Eurojust, 
Europol) 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 
other 
developments? 

Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data collection methods & 
sources 

EQ27.2: Has the 
punishable conduct 
enumerated in Article 3 
and 4 of the Directive as 
criminal offence been 
defined in a clear, 
precise and foreseeable 
way so as not to 
jeopardise the principles 
of legality of criminal 
offences?  

EQ27.3: Are the 
penalties envisaged for 
the punishable offences 
in Article 5 of the 
Directive proportionate 
given the nature and 
severity of the conduct? 

EQ27.4: Are there other 
developments leading to 
impact on fundamental 
rights and freedoms 
resulting from the 
implementation of the 
Directive? 

•  Qualitative assessment by 
stakeholders on the clarity, 
precision and foreseeability 
of the punishable conducts in 
the Directive 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 

stakeholders on the 
proportionality of the 
penalties for the punishable 
offence of the Directive in 
relation to the nature and 
severity of the conduct 

•  Qualitative assessment by the 
stakeholders on whether there 
are other developments 
resulting in impact on 
fundamental rights and 
freedoms while 
implementing the Directive   

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment  Quantitativ

N/A 

N/A 

e  

N/A 

Commen
t 

Quantitative 

Comment  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Costs: 

Direct 
compliance costs 
(adjustment costs, 
administrative costs, 
regulatory charges) 

Enforcement 
costs:  (costs 
associated with 
activities linked to 
the implementation 
of an initiative such 
as monitoring, 
inspections and 
adjudication/litigatio
n) 

Indirect costs 
(indirect compliance 
costs or other 
indirect costs such as 
transaction costs) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/
A 

N/A 

Benefits: 
Direct benefits 
(such as improved 
wellbeing: changes  
in pollution levels, 
safety, health, 
employment; market 
efficiency) 

Harmonisin
g money 
laundering 
offences and 
penalties 
across 
Member 
States 

65 

The main 
administrative costs 
relate to the 
transposition of the 
Directive, in terms of 
amending national 
legislation as needed.  

Costs related to 
acquiring / 
developing specific 
expertise reported by 
a small number of 
administrations / 
authorities (e.g., costs 
for FTEs, in order to 
cover specific areas 
of expertise in 
combatting money 
laundering (e.g., 
virtual currencies)). 
Costs associated with 
heavier workload 
reported by a small 
number of 
administrations / 
authorities, although 
it is unclear whether 
this can be attributed 
to the Directive or 
also accounts for 
other usual activity of 
the stakeholder 

Legal clarity and 
effectiveness 
stemming from 
harmonisation of 
definitions  

Enhanced 
investigative 
capabilities for law 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
N/
A 

N/A 

None 
reported 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Indirect benefits 
(such as wider 
economic benefits, 
macroeconomic 
benefits, social 
impacts, 
environmental 
impacts) 

enforcement 

Enhanced deterrence  
Improved 
cooperation 
Confiscation of 
laundered goods 
adding to the state 
treasury 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Continuous stakeholder engagement was crucial for the success of the study  supporting 
the  evaluation,  since  the  input  by  stakeholders  in  the  process  was  key  to  gathering  the 
required data and formulating findings. 

The  data-collection  tools  selected  for  this  supporting  study  included:  desk  research, 
interviews,  online  survey,  meetings  and  tertiary  experts  –  of  which  the  interviews  and 
online survey are the stakeholder consultation tools of most importance for this synopsis 
report.  

Desk research 

A fundamental component of the study, desk research was ongoing from the inception of 
the  project  until  its  conclusion.  This  encompasses  the  review  of  existing  legal  AML 
frameworks,  international  AML  standards,  specialised  reports,  relevant  initiatives, 
updates and current trends.   

Discovery interviews 

A  total  of  11  discovery  interviews  were  conducted  between  staff  of  the  European 
Commission  and  the  Evaluation  Team,  comprising  5  interviews  with  representatives 
from  Directorate-General  Migration  and  Home  Affairs  (DG  HOME)  and  6  interviews 
with  the  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and  Consumers  (DG  JUST),  the  Directorate-
General  for  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  (DG  TAXUD),  the  Directorate‑General  for 
Financial  Stability,  Financial  Services  and  Capital  Markets  Union  (DG  FISMA),  the 
Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR), the 
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and the European External Action Service (EEAS). 
These  interviews  were  organised  to  gain  a  deeper  understanding  of  expectations 
regarding  the  evaluation  process  and  to  glean  insights  into  the  perspectives  of  the  staff 
regarding the implementation of the Directive. 

66 

 
 
 
Ad hoc interviews: 

The aim of these ad hoc interviews was to collect further qualitative evidence from key 
stakeholders and fill in any information gaps (e.g. online survey). 

Overview of interviews conducted (discovery interviews and ad hoc interviews) 

Stakeholder 

Stakeholder Type 

# of  
Interviews 

Interview type 

Date(s) 

DG HOME 

EU institutions 

EU institutions 
EU institutions 
EU institutions 

EU institutions 

EU institutions 
EU institutions 

EU business association 

EU business association 
EU business association 

EU institutions 

5  

1  
1  
1  

1  

1  
1  

1  

1  
1  

1  

Discovery interviews 

Discovery interview 
Discovery interview 
Discovery interview 
Discovery interview 
Case study Interview 
Discovery interview 
Discovery interview 

Ad hoc interview 

Ad hoc interview 
Ad hoc interview 

12/1/2024 (2), 
15/1/2024 
16/1/2024, 19/1/2024 
17/1/2024 
17/1/2024 
10/1/2024 
19/1/2024 
4/6/2024 
16/1/2024 
31/1/2024 

12/2/2024 

15/2/2024 
6/3/2024 

Ad hoc interview 

13/3/2024 

EU institutions 

1  

Case study interview 

28/5/2024 

EU institutions 

EU institutions 

National authorities  

1 

1 

1 

Case study interview 

5/6/2024 

Case study interview 

4/6/2024 

Case study interview 

28/5/2024 

DG JUST 
DG FISMA 
DG TAXUD 

DG NEAR 

OLAF 
EEAS 
European Tax 
Federation 
Accountancy Europe 
Tax Advisors Europe 
European Public 
Prosecutor Office 
(EPPO) 
European Union 
Agency for Law 
Enforcement 
Cooperation (Europol) 
The European Union 
Agency for 
Fundamental Rights 
(FRA) 
EU Delegations 
EMPACT network 
(representative of FR) 

Interviews (and written contributions) for case studies 

The  purpose  of  these  interviews  was  to  hold  in-depth  discussions  on  specific  topics 
identified  for  the  three  case  studies  with  stakeholders  with  practical,  operational  /  field 
experience  in  the  fields  covered  by  the  case  studies.  These  interviews  included 
representatives of national authorities identified through the EMPACT network (e.g., DE, 
EE,  FR,  LV,  IS),  representatives  of  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement 
Cooperation  (Europol)  and  representatives  of  DG  NEAR  and  EU  delegations  in 
accession countries.  

67 

 
 
 
Online surveys 

Twelve online surveys were developed to gather insights for the evaluation of Directive 
(EU) 2018/1673, targeting four distinct groups. Four surveys were specifically tailored to 
national authorities of the Member States, including judicial authorities, law enforcement 
authorities,  Asset  Recovery  Offices,  and  Financial  Intelligence  Units.  Additionally,  six 
surveys  were  designed  for  various  EU  bodies  such  as  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Law  Enforcement  Cooperation  (Europol),  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Criminal 
Justice  Cooperation  (Eurojust),  the  European  Multidisciplinary  Platform  Against 
Criminal  Threats  (EMPACT),  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO),  the 
European Banking Authority, and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 
(FRA). One survey was targeted at key international stakeholders in AML, including the 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Financial Action Task Force 
(FATF),  the  Committee  of  Experts  on  the  Evaluation  of  Anti-Money  Laundering 
Measures  and  the  Financing  of  Terrorism  (Moneyval),  and  the  International  Criminal 
Police  Organisation  (INTERPOL),  while  another  survey  was  aimed  at  specialised 
European associations, think tanks, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). 

The  surveys  were  distributed  online  to  each  stakeholder  category  via  the  EU  Survey 
platform.  The  response  rate  was  low,  but  feedback  indicated  that  stakeholders  require 
additional time to gather pertinent information or  could be unable to address all survey 
questions,  so  adjustments  were  made.  Following  consultation  with  DG  HOME,  survey 
questions were switched from mandatory to optional for several stakeholder categories, 
allowing for partial input where feasible. Moreover, recognising the time constraints and 
difficulties  faced  by  stakeholders  in  responding  comprehensively,  dedicated  individual 
consultations were put in place to accommodate stakeholders’ needs (ad hoc interviews). 

Responses were received from various national authorities: 6 judicial authorities, 13 law 
enforcement authorities, 11 Financial  Intelligence Units, and 8 Asset Recovery Offices. 
External  stakeholders  also  contributed,  with  submissions  from  three  EU  bodies,  two 
NGOs/Think-tanks/professional  associations,  and  one 
International  Organisation. 
Additionally,  we  have  conducted  individual  consultations  with  three  professional 
associations and one EU body (ad hoc interviews). 

Overview of surveys and responses 

Stakeholder Type 

Stakeholders 

National Authorities 

National judicial authorities * 

National law enforcement authorities * 

Financial Intelligence Units * 

Asset Recovery Offices * 

NGOs, think-tanks, 

Royal United Services Institute, Global Initiative against 

68 

# Responses  
(Received by 
24/05/2024) 

 8 

14 

11 

 8 

 6 

 
 
academic institutions 
and European 
associations * 

Transnational Organised Crime, Transcrime, Basel Institute of 
Governance, Transparency International, Global Initiative to Fight 
Financial Crime, Institute for Financial Crime – University of 
Groningen, Centre for European Policy Studies, Tax Justice 
Network, European Criminal Bar Association, The Council of Bars 
and Law Society of Europe, European Banking Federation, Tax 
Advisors Europe, European Tax Advisors Federation, 
Accountancy Europe 

International 
organisations * 

UNODC, Council of Europe, Financial Action Task Force, 
INTERPOL  

European Union 
Bodies and Agencies  

European Banking Authority * 

EMPACT * 

EPPO * 

Eurojust* 

Europol – Anti-Money Laundering Operational Network (AMON) 
– European Financial and Economic Crime Centre (EFECC) * 

FRA * 

* Unique surveys 

Participation in meetings and workshops 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

- 

Participation  in  the  Meeting  of  the  Expert  Group  of  the  Commission  on  EU  Criminal 
Policy (March 1, 2024) provided a unique opportunity to gather expert input and relevant 
insights to complement initial observations from surveys and interviews. The Horizontal 
Expert group gathered Prosecutors, Criminal lawyers and Criminal Law Professors from 
Member States. 

Tertiary experts 

Generally,  stakeholder  participation  can  be  considered  relatively  low,  especially  with 
regard to participation in the survey. In view of this, the team in charge of the supporting 
study  also  relied  on  input  from  tertiary  experts,  who  provided  information  about  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  across  the  Member  States.  In  total,  14  legal  experts 
provided  their  input  in  this  regard,  covering  the  following  Member  States:  Bulgaria, 
Germany, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania and Sweden. 

Results of the stakeholder consultation activities  

The  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  are  reflected  in  the  assessment  of  the 
evaluation of the Directive in Section 4. The consultation activities were tailored towards 
and targeted at specific stakeholder groups, providing the necessary input for assessing of 
the performance of the Directive.  

69 

 
 
In  light  of  this,  contacting  different  groups  of  stakeholders  made  it  possible  to  obtain 
varied input for the study with regard to the evaluation of the Directive.  

The  European  Commission’s  DGs  provided  information  on  the  inputs  and  outputs  of 
the Directive, and on the interplay with other policies and legislation in the area of anti-
money  laundering,  financial  crime  prevention  in  the  EU,  and  other  policies.  The  DGs 
were  primarily  involved  during  the  inception  phase  of  the  study  supporting  the 
evaluation, providing guidance on the assessment of the CMLD, and in the context of the 
ISG.  Meanwhile,  the  EU  agencies  and  bodies  provided  input  on  the  practical 
implementation of the study, on best practices and on challenges seen at EU level.  

Furthermore, stakeholders from the EU institutions contributed to the assessment of the 
evaluation  criteria  for  the  CMLD.  For  effectiveness,  the  EU  institutions  generally 
underlined  the  harmonisation  established  by  the  CMLD,  whilst  also  highlighting  the 
limiting  factors  in  this  regard,  such  as  a  degree  of  ambiguity  in  the  definitions  (e.g. 
regarding  property  or  predicate  offences)  and  the  differences  in  transposition  across 
various  Member  States.  Moreover,  the  Commission  recommended  that  alignment  be 
ensured between the Directive and newly adopted criminal-law instruments in the EU – 
in  particular  regarding  the  approach  towards  sanctions.  The  EU  added  value  stemming 
from the contributions to harmonisation was also underscored by the stakeholder group. 
For the assessment of the relevance criterion, the stakeholder group generally indicated 
that  the  Directive  consistently  addressed  current  and  future  threats.  Finally,  the  EU 
institutions  and  bodies  indicated  that  the  CMLD  Directive  complied  with  the  key 
fundamental rights principles.   

The international stakeholders provided insights into the positioning and application of 
the  Directive  in  the  broader  international  context  of  the  fight  against  financial  crime, 
which  is  of  particular  relevance  for  the  external  coherence  dimension.  Given  the  low 
response rate of this stakeholder group, it is difficult to extrapolate the insights from the 
consultation activities without potentially breaching the anonymity principle ensured by 
the study team during the consultation activities. In view of this, a detailed assessment of 
their input is not included here.  

The national authorities – covering the judicial authorities, law enforcement agencies, 
Financial  Intelligence  Units  and  Asset  Recovery  Offices  –  gave  their  views  on  the 
practical  implementation  of  the  Directive  at  national  level,  shared  best  practices  and 
pointed  out  possible  challenges  associated  with  the  Directive’s  transposition  and 
implementation. As highlighted above, the national authorities were primarily consulted 
via the use of surveys. 

In  terms  of  effectiveness,  they  contributed,  for  example,  to  the  assessment  of  the 
harmonisation  of  offences  and  penalties  (indicating  that  the  national  regulatory 
frameworks  are  aligned  with  the  provisions  of  the  Directive),  cross-border  and 
international  cooperation,  the  use  of  investigative  tools  and  money  laundering 
prevention.  Generally,  national  authorities  were  aligned  on  most  elements  linked  to 
effectiveness,  but  they  diverged,  for  example,  diverged  when  it  came  to  facilitating 

70 

 
investigation  and  prosecution,  with  LEAs  reporting  a  higher  level  of  support  than  the 
Financial Intelligence Units of the Member States. 

In terms of efficiency, all branches of the national authorities which were consulted in the 
surveys reported no significant costs or additional administrative burden associated with 
indicated that this aspect should be further assessed, as the timing of the external study 
meant that limited data were available on this subject. 

When it came to coherence, all national authorities’ stakeholders indicated no significant 
regulatory gaps linked to the CMLD beyond some minor points requiring improvement, 
in  particular,  the  monitoring  by  Asset  Recovery  Offices  of  the  current  balance  of  bank 
accounts.  The  national  authorities  assessed  internal  coherence  positively.  Regarding 
external  coherence,  all  branches  of  the  national  authorities  were  generally  aligned:  the 
JAs,  LEAs  and  Asset  Recovery  Offices  all  indicated  that  the  CMLD  Directive  did  not 
affect  international  cooperation  given  its  sole  European  focus,  contributing  only 
moderately  given  pre-existing  national  provisions  on  the  matter.  Nevertheless,  some 
elements  of  the  CMLD  affect  its  external  coherence  of  the  Directive,  in  particular  the 
provisions on the scope of predicate offences.  

Mirroring the aforementioned availability of pre-existing provisions, national authorities 
had  different  views  on  the  EU  added  value  of  the  CMLD.  Whilst  some  national 
authorities highlighted further harmonisation across the EU, other stakeholders reported 
that  given  the  pre-existing  regulatory  framework,  the  added  value  of  the  CMLD  was 
limited. The same split holds true for the assessment of additional reforms sparked by the 
Directive,  with  all  JAs  reporting  no  additional  reforms,  whilst  62%  of  the  LEAs  stated 
that  the  transposition  of  the  CMLD  prompted  reforms  in  the  area  of  AML  and  the 
contrast to terrorism financing.  

Finally,  regarding  relevance,  national  authorities  generally  indicated  not  only  that  the 
CMLD addressed current and future threats sufficiently, but was also future-proof given 
recent  development  and  anticipated  trends  such  as  AI,  virtual  currencies  and  crypto. 
Nonetheless,  some  significant  potential  issues  were  raised.  For  example,  LEAs 
highlighted the lack of clear provisions on  what  constitutes a predicate offence or self-
laundering.   

The European associations gave insights into the views of the private sector, which was 
also  impacted  by  the  Directive’s  provisions.  In  particular,  they  contributed  important 
insights  regarding  coherence,  flagging  up  the  importance  of  improving  the  wording 
regarding  the  link  between  the  CMLD  and  Directive  2014/42/EU  on  the  freezing  and 
confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union.  

The  final  stakeholder  group  consulted  in  the  context  of  the  study  supporting  the 
evaluation consisted of NGOs, think-tanks and academic institutions. This stakeholder 
group contributed to the academic analysis of the Directive and its potential impact and 
challenges.  Regarding  effectiveness,  NGOs  and  academic  institutions  indicated  a 
diverging  situation  across  the  EU  in  terms  of  implementation  of  the  CMLD  within 

71 

 
national regulatory frameworks. Though they recognised the harmonisation prompted by 
the  Directive,  they  pointed  out  that  this  was  a  limiting  factor.  Furthermore,  the 
stakeholder  group  also  noted  the  challenges  faced  regarding  the  predicate  offences 
described 
the 
proportionality  of  the  CMLD,  given  the  plans  to  use  investigative  tools  designed  for 
organised  crime  to  investigate  all  forms  of  money  laundering.  They  indicated  that  this 
would  potentially  divert  resources  away  from  the  fight  against  terrorism  and  organised 
crime.  

the  CMLD.  Finally,  academics  also  raised  concerns  about 

in 

In  terms  of  efficiency,  a  subset  of  the  stakeholder  group  was  the  only  one  to  indicate 
potential costs associated with  the implementation  of the Directive given the additional 
requirements and rules. Given that this particular subset of the stakeholder group was the 
sole one to express this position and given the lack of available data, it was difficult to 
verify  the  statement,  but  it  was  nevertheless  important  to  include  it  in  the  qualitative 
assessment on the efficiency criterion.   

The final set of key contributions made by NGOs, think-tanks and academic institutions 
focused  on  the  assessment  of  fundamental  rights.  Key  observations  include  (i)  the 
possible  impact  on  the  presumption  of  innocence  given  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive;  (ii) potential issues with  the principle of proportionality  based  on a potential 
conflict when transposing the Directive in Member States that do not recognise corporate 
criminal  liability and  (iii) the potential  need to  include specific provisions to  guarantee 
each individual fundamental right in the Directive.  

72