Regulation 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing (the ‘AML Regulation’) was passed on 31 May 2024. Money laundering issues have been regulated at EU level for a long time, but this was so far done in the form of a directive laying down only minimum standards and giving the member states wide discretion to choose ways of implementing them.

Proposals for amending the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (AMLCTPFA) were laid before Parliament on 3 May 2024. These are being debated along with several other enactments governing crypto-asset service providers to harmonise the national law with the EU framework. In addition to several improvements related to crypto-asset service providers, the Finance Ministry has presented proposals for improving the general AMLCTPFA rules. This would help ease the administrative burden while staying true to AMLCTPFA’s objective. However, the legislative process is not yet finished and the current wording of the proposals might not receive Parliament’s approval in the last reading. This article explores some of the most significant improvements.

The Cabinet of Ministers is expected to approve a bill amending the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing (AML/CTPF) Act. Although the bill has yet to undergo parliamentary review and may therefore be modified, we suggest you familiarise yourselves with the proposed changes, as they will significantly affect persons governed by the AML/CTPF Act that make foreign exchange cash purchases or sales, and legal arrangements, including trusts.

Identifying the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of a legal entity is key to securing compliance with the anti-money laundering (AML) rules and making sure that no business is done with sanctioned persons. Yet there are some other aspects to be considered because the rules vary as to how a UBO is defined in each particular case. This article explores how these differences can be detected and applied for daily purposes to ensure compliance with the AML rules and the sanctions rules.

To continue the fight against money laundering and sanctions breaches, members of the European Parliament sitting on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs called attention on 28 March to the need for tighter conditions in combating money laundering, terrorism and proliferation financing (“AML”) as well as sanctions breaches. These committees have drawn up a package of documents containing three draft laws, which the European Parliament is to debate in April.

Amendments to the Proof of Identity Act that came into force on 1 September 2022 will also affect entities that are subject to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (“AML/CTPFA subjects”). If you want to keep your client relationships then you should evaluate how the amendments will affect them, and you should adopt solutions that will allow you to legally continue those relationships.

As Russia continues the war in Ukraine, the US and the European Union (EU) together with other countries keep increasing the size of sanctions imposed on Russia.

At the EU summit held on 30–31 May 2022, the European Council agreed on the sixth package of sanctions against Russia that will mainly apply to crude oil and petroleum products supplied to EU member states. Yet the Council of Europe has agreed a temporary exception for crude oil supplied through pipelines. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has said that the restrictions included in the package will in fact stop around 90% of EU oil imports from Russia by the end of this year.

As the size of the sanctions grows, confused companies are having more and more questions about how to cope with the increasing sanctions burden, whether a company is supervised by particular regulatory bodies, and whether the current sanctions rules and guidelines provide for setting up an internal control system to manage sanctions risk.

If a company finds it is governed by the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing (AML/CTPF) Act, it has two priority steps to take: register as an entity subject to the Act after stating a type of activities governed by the Act, and appoint an officer responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act’s requirements under section 10. This appointment must be reported to the relevant supervisory authority such as the State Revenue Service or the Financial and Capital Markets Commission.
 

Companies often provide various intragroup services for optimisation purposes. Whether such companies are governed by the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (the “Act”) is a question that has always come under a great deal of scrutiny. Effective from 12 July 2021, section 3 of the Act contains subsection 6, which prescribes exclusions and answers questions that group companies tend to ask when assessing whether they are governed by the Act. This article explores how intragroup services qualify for statutory exclusions.

We have written earlier about amendments to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act (the “Act”), which, among other things, will make it easier for persons that are subject to the Act (“Subjects”) to report suspicious transactions and will set up a common customer due diligence tool. This article explores changes to the requirements affecting the ultimate beneficial owner (“UBO”) of a Subject.
 

On 15 June 2021, Parliament adopted amendments to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing (“AML/CTPF”) Act, which, among other things, makes it easier for persons that are subject to the Act to report suspicious transactions taxwise and creates a common customer due diligence tool. The amendments relating to reporting procedures are coming into force on 1 October 2021, and the tool is to be used from 1 January 2022.
 

We have spent the last year or so coming to terms with the Covid-19 pandemic, which has changed our daily lives beyond recognition. While we keep thinking mainly about the restrictions and outbreak statistics, it would be useful to figure out whether companies are now subject to a heightened risk of money laundering and terrorism and proliferation financing (“ML/TPF”) and whether the internal control systems set up by persons subject to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act are still as effective as they were before the pandemic.

Acting on requests from customers and readers to identify and interpret persons that are subject to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing Act, we approached the State Revenue Service for some practical insights into non-standard and complex corporate structures and their business activities in order to gain a broader understanding of how the Act should be applied. We have now summarised the information and reached conclusions, so here are the answers!

Information published by the Latvian State Revenue Service (“SRS”) on sanctions they have imposed on persons that are subject to the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism and Proliferation Financing (“AML/CTPF”) Act for breaching this Act and the International and National Sanctions Act, with data for 2020 and 2021, shows a large number of breaches and a lack of awareness of what the two Acts require and whether a company fits the definition of “subject” within the meaning of the AML/CTPF Act.

Draft rules that significantly change the system for reporting suspicious transactions were announced at the meeting of state secretaries on 14 January 2021. This article explores the current reporting requirements and the proposed changes relating to the new goAML app.