On 1 October 2026, the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (herein referred to as ‘AMLA’), announced that it had finalised draft regulatory technical standards (herein referred to as ‘RTS’), under Article 46(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640, the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (herein referred to as the ‘AMLD’).
The proposed RTS promote consistent supervision of cross-border groups in financial and non-financial sectors across the European Union (herein referred to as the ‘EU’), through information exchange, cross-border inquiries and coordinated supervisory action. Additionally, although directed primarily at supervisors, they also have practical implications for businesses and professionals within affected groups.
AMLA’s finalisation of the draft RTS does not, of itself, make them binding. The standards remain subject to adoption by the European Commission and publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, and may still be amended before adoption.
Once adopted, the proposed instrument would take the form of a Commission Delegated Regulation, directly applicable in all Member States without national transposition. The draft provides for entry into force on the twentieth day following publication, with application from 10 July 2027.
This prospective application is significant because it will convert what are currently proposed supervisory cooperation arrangements into binding obligations. Businesses may therefore begin reviewing their arrangements in anticipation, but the adopted text will determine the definitive requirements and timetable.
Where a group operates in several Member States, supervisory responsibilities are shared. The home supervisor oversees implementation of group-wide controls, while host supervisors oversee compliance of establishments within their territories.
Each authority may therefore hold only part of the information needed to assess anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism risks (herein referred to as ‘AML/CFT’). Cooperation helps determine whether local weaknesses have wider implications for the group.
AMLA’s assessment identifies divergent national practices and reliance on bilateral or ad hoc arrangements as obstacles to effective supervision, particularly where no AML/CFT supervisory college exists. The draft addresses these difficulties through common procedures for information requests, inquiries and coordinated approaches. Where a college exists, the RTS apply to processes not otherwise governed by its specific framework.
AMLA has chosen a single framework for both sectors, seeking to reduce fragmentation while retaining flexibility. Cooperation should remain proportionate to the group’s size, risks and operational characteristics and the supervisors’ capacities.
Additionally, entities operating in another Member State exclusively through branches, agents, distributors or other infrastructure fall under Article 47 AMLD and outside this draft. Non-financial supervisors of certain networks or partnerships must cooperate under the AMLD but are encouraged, rather than formally required, to apply these procedures.
The first and foundational cooperation mechanism is information exchange. The draft RTS require home and host supervisors to share information capable of significantly influencing the assessment of an entity’s risk exposure, both upon request and on their own initiative. This includes updated risk assessments, relevant regulatory developments, audit findings and supervisory findings.
Moreover, specified information concerning procedures to impose pecuniary sanctions or administrative measures must be shared before the entity is notified of their initiation, allowing other supervisors to assess implications for related entities.
Accordingly, before requesting information, supervisors must verify whether it is already available and accessible, including through beneficial ownership and bank account registers. They may also consider requesting access to AMLA’s central AML/CFT database.
Where a request is necessary, it must identify the authorities and entities concerned, explain its purpose and justification, describe the information or inquiry sought, and specify the preferred deadlines and confidentiality arrangements. Consequently, the receiving supervisor must acknowledge requests without undue delay and make every effort to meet the deadline. If it cannot do so, it must explain the reasons and, where appropriate, propose an alternative deadline.
Effective information exchange depends on appropriate safeguards. Information exchanged under the proposed framework must be transmitted through secure communication channels providing appropriate confidentiality, access controls and access logs, while supervisors must retain records of requests, decisions and information exchanged.
These safeguards are intended to support, rather than restrict, supervisory cooperation. Where duly justified for supervisory tasks, information may be disclosed to other relevant supervisors, including AMLA acting in a supervisory capacity, or to specified public oversight authorities without the originating supervisor’s prior consent. However, the originating supervisor must be informed of what was disclosed, to whom and why, beforehand where possible and otherwise no later than upon disclosure.
The framework nevertheless preserves certain limits. Information originating from third-country counterparts remains subject to prior consent requirements, and information covered by legal privilege under Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 must not be exchanged under these standards.
Information exchange alone may not be sufficient where supervisory concerns require local verification. The draft RTS therefore permit a supervisor to request another authority to conduct an inquiry on its behalf, or to facilitate the requesting supervisor’s own inquiry, including an on-site inspection, subject to applicable law and agreed arrangements.
Those arrangements must address contact points and information exchange. Assistance may include access to premises and records, obtaining necessary authorisations and overcoming language or procedural difficulties. Supervisors must subsequently discuss their findings and, where necessary, coordinate action concerning findings that could seriously affect other parts of the group. Any refusal or limitation must be justified, documented and communicated.
Building on this inquiry mechanism, the RTS also provide for coordinated or joint supervisory action. Home and host supervisors are expected to exchange views regularly to determine whether coordinated action would be appropriate. Where a common approach is agreed, the authorities must document its scope, timetable, information-sharing arrangements and follow-up measures. This may include coordinated inspections and, where appropriate, coordinated enforcement action.
For businesses and professionals within affected groups, the principal implication is that supervisory findings in one jurisdiction may influence assessments elsewhere. They should therefore review how compliance responsibilities are allocated, weaknesses are escalated and corrective measures are implemented, while remaining attentive to the final adopted requirements.
For any additional information or assistance, please contact us at info@gtg.com.mt
Author: Alesea Azzopardi Spiteri