Lars Weineck, Head of AML, Dentons (Photo: Dentons)

Lars Weineck, Head of AML, Dentons (Photo: Dentons)

As financial crime grows more complex, a robust anti-money laundering (AML) framework is crucial. Article 75 of the EU’s new AML Regulation (AMLR) significantly enhances information sharing between obliged entities, while similar regimes exist outside the EU. This article will try to compare them.

Article 75 of the EU AMLR

Article 75 of the new EU AMLR provides an opportunity for AML/CFT-regulated entities within the EU to share money laundering and terrorist financing information with each other. This provision aims to create a more integrated and efficient system for detecting and preventing financial crime across Member States. By promoting greater cooperation and transparency, the EU hopes to close the gaps exploited by criminals to launder money and finance terrorism.

The US Information Sharing Regime

The US has long recognised the value of information sharing in the fight against financial crime. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015 facilitates the sharing of cyber threat information between the government and private sector entities. In addition, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) operates the 314 (b) programme, which allows financial institutions to share information with each other to identify and report activities that may involve money laundering or terrorist financing.

Singapore’s COSMIC Platform

Singapore has also made significant progress in improving information sharing to combat financial crime. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) recently launched the Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing Information and Cases (COSMIC) platform. This platform enables financial institutions to share information about suspicious activity in a secure and controlled manner. Initially voluntary, the platform is expected to become mandatory, reflecting Singapore’s proactive approach to AML/CTF efforts.

Comparative Analysis

While the EU, US and Singapore have all established frameworks for information sharing, there are notable differences in their approaches. The EU’s Article 75 focuses on the creation of formalised partnerships that must conduct risk assessments, establish policies and procedures, and respect data protection and fundamental rights and due process. National supervisory authorities will oversee and facilitate the exchange of information between Member States. In contrast, the US relies on a combination of legislative mandates and voluntary programmes to encourage information sharing among financial institutions. Singapore’s COSMIC platform represents a hybrid approach, starting with voluntary participation and moving towards mandatory compliance.

Conclusion: Missed Opportunity or Game Changer?

The effectiveness of these information-sharing regimes ultimately depends on their implementation and the willingness of obliged entities to cooperate. The success of the EU’s Article 75 will depend on how burdensome the creation of partnerships under the regulation is perceived to be. The US and Singapore models impose less of a regulatory burden on participants. It remains to be seen whether the hurdles in the EU are too high to create an effective information sharing regime.

While it is unclear if these partnerships are a missed opportunity or a game changer, the commitment to transparency and cooperation in fighting financial crime is a positive step forward. These evolving regimes will undoubtedly shape the European AML landscape.

More info on :

Lars Weineck

Tel :