No products in the cart.
BaFin maintains that, contrary to its previous administrative practice, BaFin regards a guarantee contract as a business relationship within the meaning of Paragraph 1(4) of the GWG. Therefore, the due diligence obligations set out in Paragraph 10 of the GWG must also be fulfilled vis-à-vis a guarantor (see p. 32 IIA). Registration at the AMLC. All DNFB must be registered with the AMLC within six months of the entry into force of the guidelines. One of the documents to submit to AMLC is the list of clients, which cannot be easily respected, as some clients have a confidentiality agreement. It would therefore be preferable to discuss such a requirement with clients and obtain confirmation of the disclosure of their identity with AMLC. 2 This obligation only applies if the financial intermediary or self-regulatory body has not already corrected. 2ter The Financial Intelligence Unit may communicate to the authorities referred to in paragraph 2 for the purposes referred to in paragraph 2a only with their explicit consent the information provided by FIUs for the purposes referred to in paragraph 2a.6 The IIA project provided that third parties within the meaning of Article 17(1) to (4) of the GwG, used by a GwG to fulfil its due diligence obligations, may not continue to transfer the performance of those obligations to a subcontractor. BaFin has removed this ban on subcontractors from the current version of the IIA. In any event, commercial relations with politically exposed foreign persons and their family members or close associates referred to in Article 2a(2) shall be considered to be of higher risk. 5 The trader is prohibited from informing data subjects or third parties that he has filed a notification in accordance with Article 9.5 Below you will find a summary of the main changes made to the current version of the IIA in relation to the DSD project. We also list some points of practical interest for which BaFin has not changed its mind, despite the objections of the associations: the IIAs clarify some of the issues raised by the implementation of the 4th European Directive on Money Laundering and the amendment of the GWG.
However, the problem is that the level of detail of the IIA is lower than that of previous INDICATIONS of the BI and contains far fewer practical examples. IIAs are also not specifically interested in the (most often digital) business models of payment institutions, e-money institutions or other FinTechs. Despite the existence of the IIA, GwG`s liable parties must therefore continue to make their own “interpretive efforts” to assess how, with regard to their business model, they can implement the money laundering rules in the most practical way possible in compliance with the rules. In addition, from the perspective of the fintech sector, it should be critically noted that the interpretation of BaFin`s money laundering provisions in the IIA (particularly with regard to the use of third parties to fulfil money laundering due diligence obligations) sometimes creates significant barriers to the digital and international business models of FinTech companies. . . .