The inter-institutional (trialogue) negotiations on the revision of the fourth anti-money laundering directive started, at the end of March, with the trickiest dossiers first.
At the first meeting, the question of whether the registers of beneficial owners of trusts and shell companies, which lay at the heart of the Panama Papers scandal, should be made public, was tackled directly and very quickly laid aside. According to our information, after each institution laid out its line of argument (the European Parliament wants full public access, the Council wants access only for persons with a legitimate interest), each one agreed to go back and discuss it again amongst themselves. In particular, the Council is reported to have expressed its reservations over including trusts, particularly family trusts. Parliament showed openness, but called for a satisfactory definition of what constitutes a family trust. A Commission contribution on this specific point is now expected.
At the second meeting, which was held on Tuesday 4 April, the co-legislators discussed the issue of "politically exposed persons", the definition of which is a problem. The council distinguishes between European and non-European politically exposed persons. European politically exposed persons could be exempted from the 'due diligence' rules laid down by the directive, but Parliament fears that this will leave the member states too much margin.
Then, Parliament included in its negotiating position an obligation on the member states to draw up national lists of politically exposed persons resident on their territory. The Commission reportedly feels that this could be useful, but issues related to data protection were raised. The Council also feels that this represents a lot of work, as the lists would require regular updates.
Lastly, Parliament takes the view that when a politically exposed person no longer holds public office or a position in an international organisation, he or she should be considered risk-sensitive for 36 months. The Commission and Council feel that this is disproportionate and would prefer 12 months.
In the other points discussed, the co-legislators talked about financial intelligence services. Parliament calls upon the Commission to submit proposals by the end of the year to create a European agency. The Council feels that this is premature. The national financial intelligence cells are, however, in favour.
The next trialogue meeting is scheduled for 10 May. (Original version in French by Élodie Lamer)