A European anti-money laundering supervisor, yes -- but which one? This is the question that several stakeholders tried to answer on Wednesday 10 June during an online event organised by Accountancy Europe, in cooperation with the European Contact Group and Transparency International.
In its action plan to strengthen the fight against money laundering presented at the beginning of May (see EUROPE 12482/8), the European Commission confirmed its intention to present proposals to set up a European supervisor in the first quarter of 2021, while remaining vague about its nature and functions.
According to Sébastien de Brouwer of the European Banking Federation, the “European Banking Authority (EBA) could and should certainly play a role”, subject to certain changes.
“Today, it looks more like a network of regulators” than a European money laundering watchdog, he admitted, also pointing out its lack of resources.
Therefore, in his view, other solutions will have to be found, be it to increase the EBA’s resources, to strengthen its competences, or to focus on another authority. In this respect, some in the banking sector have called for the European Central Bank (ECB) to take on this role, he said, although the ECB seems to be refusing to do so.
In any case, before taking a decision, the Commission will first have to decide whether it wants an authority that supervises only banks or a broader range of entities, he pointed out.
According to Angela Foyle of Accountancy Europe, a set of criteria could be developed, for example, to determine which entities pose a risk to the EU in terms of money laundering and, therefore, which entities should be subject to such supervision.
For her part, Maira Martini, an expert at Transparency International, argued for the establishment of a new independent body with direct supervisory powers that could also sanction Member States in the event of an infringement.
“Why not Europol?” asked one participant. According to Raluca Pruna, Head of the ‘Financial Crime’ Unit at the Commission’s Directorate General for Financial Stability (FISMA), this is not an option, because Europol would not be able to deal with the preventive aspect; for example, to intervene in the event of a suspicious transaction. Nevertheless, the agency will have an important role to play in law enforcement cooperation, she said.
Mrs Pruna expressed overall confidence in the prospects for the Commission’s future proposals among the Member States. “There is institutional political momentum in which everyone is aligned”, she said, also referring to the December 2019 EU Council conclusions (see EUROPE 12384/4).
“The Commission’s dilemma now is how to deliver on a very ambitious policy approach while remaining realistic”, she said. A good example is the question of the scope of supervision: should priority be given to the financial sector first, then to the non-financial sector, or should both sectors be covered straightaway?
The Commission hopes to find some answers through the comments sent by stakeholders as part of its public consultation. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)