On Thursday 5 September, the European Commission presented to the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) regarding the state of its reflections on the future European list of third countries with anti-money laundering measures that pose a threat to the European financial system (see EUROPE 12193/28). This was an opportunity to gauge initial reactions to its revised methodology.
The European Commissioner for Justice, Věra Jourová, could not be present for "personal reasons", so it was Alexandra Jour-Schröder, the European institution's Acting Deputy Director General for Justice Services, who participated in this exercise.
"What we aim for is that we try to ensure a consensus between all the institutions on the process, in order to avoid that either the European Parliament or the EU Council rejects the list", she explained, ensuring that the new delegated act to be presented will be an "autonomous process ," as requested by the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12214/6).
As it stands, the new methodology places greater emphasis on upstream engagement with third countries to encourage them to set up an effective regime before listing them.
"We envisage within this refined methodology to inform and confront countries with our detailed preliminary assessment of their deficiencies", explained Ms Jour-Schröder, considering that this corresponds to the expectations of the EU Council.
As a second step, it would be necessary to put in place, with third countries that have committed themselves to reforms, detailed action plans on how to address the identified shortcomings.
The most cooperative countries could be given sufficient time to implement the requested measures. The Commission would closely monitor this process and could even carry out on-site visits in the country, while the European Parliament and the EU Council would be kept fully informed, she said.
If the country does not implement the measures on time, it will then be placed on the EU's 'black list'. The same fate would be reserved for countries that refuse to cooperate or those that present an "overriding level of risks".
But once on the list, a third country will not be left to its own devices and the Commission will continue the dialogue and provide technical assistance, Schröder said.
The Commission should also maintain the approach of recognising that the countries on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) list present a high risk to the EU. On the other hand, the removal of a country from the FATF list will not automatically lead to its removal from the EU's 'black' list, she warned.
The new approach apparently did not convince Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany), who asked why the Commission had not in the end adopted an approach based on the 'black' and 'grey' list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (see EUROPE 12295/15).
The MEP also criticised the delays that were far too long for his liking, in particular the delay between the failure analysis and the inclusion on the list, which he said could go up to 18 months.
"I ask the Commission to sharpen its methodology (…) and not to give in to the pressure of Member States", he said.
EBA calls for more resources
On Thursday, the President of the European Banking Authority (EBA), José Maria Campa, addressed MEPs. While with the reform of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESA) - (see EUROPE 12219/6), the EBA has been given new powers in the fight against money laundering, it continues to operate with limited resources, he explained.
To date, three people work full-time on anti-money laundering issues at the Authority's headquarters in Paris. With the revision of the AES, eight additional people are expected to reinforce this team over the next two years. But, according to Mr Campa, at least five additional people would be needed.
More resources is one of the ways to increase the effectiveness of the fight against money laundering in the EU, which has been plagued by many scandals in recent years, according to Mr Campa.
In his view, minimum harmonisation is no longer enough and we should move towards more prescriptive legislation, for example by legislating through regulations and no longer through directives.
The establishment of a "homogeneous and fully integrated supervisor of national supervisors at EU level" would, in his view, be another solution (see EUROPE 12312/8). Because "the EBA is not a supervisor of supervisors", he highlighted. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)