C 152/92
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
6.4.2022
2.7.
In contrast to the private sector regulation, the 6th AML-CFT Directive focuses on its institutional system and its adaptation in each Member State.
The proposal clarifies competences, tasks and access to information of FIUs, establishes a framework for joint analyses and provides a legal basis for the FIU.net system.
The power of supervisors to act is strengthened and the mechanisms for cooperation between supervisors and with other authorities are improved.
The interconnection of bank account registers is provided for.
2.8.
The proposed Regulation on transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets is a recast of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11) on transfers of funds, with the aim of making the traceability and identification requirements for transfers of crypto-assets similar to those in place for funds.
At the same time, crypto-asset service providers will be subject to the requirements of the AML Regulation for other financial operators.
3.
General remarks 3.1.
The 1st AML Directive was enacted in 1991.
Since then, four other AML-FT directives and dozens of other complementary directives have been adopted, relating to the financial system or to related crimes and offences.
The results of this endeavour, considered a priority by the EU authorities, have clearly been unsatisfactory to date.
3.2.
There is widespread agreement on this, as already reflected in the Commission’s 2019 assessments and those of institutions such as the European Parliament, in its resolutions of March 2019 and July 2020 (12), and the Court of Auditors, in its report of June 2021, entitled EU efforts to combat money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and insufficiently implemented (13), and in the vast majority of specialist, academic and think-tank analyses, notably the CEPS-ECRI Task Force Report (14).
3.3.
Estimates of the volume of money laundering put it at between 1 % of EU27 GDP (Europol and the European Commission) and 1,3 % (Court of Auditors), i.e. between EUR 140 and 208 billion per year.
More significantly, according to Europol, only around 1 % of this volume is recovered.
There have been numerous money laundering scandals involving major financial institutions in recent years, and it is significant that many of them would not have been uncovered without the application of European legislation or the intervention of supervisors.
In other words, despite the efforts and willingness of the European Commission and the European Parliament, no progress has been made in terms of results in the fight against AML-CFT.
3.4.
The publication of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) of the Pandora Papers has once again highlighted the scale of the problem of money laundering and related crimes, and the essential role of tax havens in facilitating these crimes.
It is therefore hard to understand that the jurisdiction most often mentioned in the papers is not on the EU’s list of ‘non-cooperative jurisdictions’, and that Ecofin has just removed from the list another jurisdiction whose legislation makes it impossible to identify the true owners of companies and accounts.
3.5.
The EESC draws the attention of the EU institutions and national governments to the need for robust protection of the life and integrity of journalists, employees and civil servants who report economic and political corruption.
The Committee is concerned that a number of Member States have not started transposition procedures for Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons reporting breaches of EU law, and calls on the Commission to act to ensure its urgent transposition by the end of 2021.
3.6.
The failures and inadequacies of EU AML-CTF policy have several causes, which have cumulative effects: (i) the fragmentation of competences between a variety of EU and Member State institutions; (ii) the lack of a single EU AML-CFT supervisor; (iii) the limited tools available to competent EU bodies; (iv) poor coordination, both in prevention initiatives and in taking action against identified risks, and the delay in implementing them;(v) shortcomings in the workings of supervisors and FIUs in many countries; (vi) the transposition of the directives has been very late and with significant differences between Member States, leading to administrative and judicial proceedings by the European Commission; (vii)
(11) (12) (13) (14)
Regulation (EU) 2015/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on information accompanying transfers of funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 1).
EP Resolution of 26 March 2019 on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (OJ C 108, 26.3.2021, p. 8) and EP Resolution 10.7.2020.
ECA Special Report 13/2021.
CEPS-ECRI: TF Report: AML in the EU; 01/2021.