The New Anti-Money Laundering Directive

The revised provisions of the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive affect the central reporting offices, supervisory authorities, and the transparency register. Above all, however, the directive means a restriction of the previous self-regulation of advisory and auditing professions in the fight against money laundering.

The German Association of Tax Advisers (DStV) emphasizes the importance of self-regulation and calls on the German legislator to implement the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive with great sensitivity.

In January, the European legislator reached an agreement on the main aspects of the Anti-Money Laundering package in the trilogue procedure. The DStV had already informed about the changes in obligations for the profession resulting from the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation.

Parallel to the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation, representatives of the EU Council and the EU Parliament also agreed on the new provisions of the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive. This aims to harmonize and specify the institutional organization for combating money laundering and terrorist financing in the member states. Additionally, it includes revised provisions for the cooperation of national authorities.

Regulatory Content

The Anti-Money Laundering Directive clarifies the responsibilities and duties of the central reporting offices in more detail and sets rules for their feedback to the obligated parties. Furthermore, the new directive contains provisions for aligning risk categories to ensure uniform risk assessments in similar situations within the member states. Additionally, the tasks of the registers for information on beneficial owners, such as the transparency register in Germany, are revised to better capture data on beneficial owners.

Overall, these are important and effective regulations to improve the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing in the future.

Self-Regulation of Advisory and Auditing Professions

The 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive specifically provides for a revision of the powers and duties of the competent supervisory authorities. According to this directive, self-regulatory bodies acting as supervisors must in the future be monitored by state authorities, which represents a new obligation for the member states.

The directive specifies the tasks to be performed by the state supervisory authority for monitoring the self-regulatory bodies. This includes, among other things, the review of the personnel and technical equipment of the self-regulatory bodies and ensuring an adequate and effective fulfillment of tasks by the chambers. Furthermore, exceptions to the individual risk analysis should be reviewed.

For the chambers of tax advisers and auditors, this means increased state supervision compared to the previous relationship of legal supervision by the competent supervisory authority. These innovations therefore represent a cut in the self-image of the self-regulation of the professions.

However, the directive allows the member states some discretion in implementing the tasks of the supervisory authority towards the self-regulatory bodies, as to how these requirements should be transposed into national law.

It is important to use this discretion. Therefore, the federal legislator has a special responsibility when implementing the directive into German law. It should be avoided to introduce regulations that go beyond the directive ("gold-plating").

Instead, the DStV demands an interpretation of the directive's requirements that ensures self-regulation is only restricted as far as absolutely necessary to safeguard interests.

In this context, the federal government must also examine how the determination of a competent supervisory authority, as provided for in the directive, is compatible with the federal supervisory and chamber system in Germany.