Read the full publication, or find a summary below.
The new Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) will play a central role in implementing the EU AML/CFT regime through drafting Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) and issuing guidance for both financial and non-financial obliged entities. These RTS will play a pivotal role in shaping compliance and must reflect the operational realities of all obliged entities, including those in the non-financial sector. This requires rules that are tailored, proportionate and workable across all sectors and entity sizes, from large institutions to smaller companies.
However, AML/CFT rules are often designed with the banking sector in mind, where large transaction volumes, high automation, and financial products define daily operations. By contrast, obliged entities in non-financial sectors like accountants, auditors, and tax advisers typically do not handle client funds or large transaction volumes. Consequently, the language and assumptions underlying AML/CFT regulations are often difficult to interpret and apply effectively in these non-financial sectors.
Accountancy Europe represents accountants, auditors, and (tax) advisers – key actors in safeguarding the integrity of the financial system. We urge AMLA and the European Commission (EC) to approach RTS development as a strategic opportunity to build a robust, fit-for-purpose, and future-proof AML/CFT regime that reflects the full spectrum of actors and risks across the EU and not as a mere technical exercise. The development of RTS must be grounded in a clear understanding of how each sector operates in practice. They should explicitly recognise differences between sectors to ensure compliance is both feasible and effective.
Our paper sets out 7 key principles and recommendations from the accountancy profession to support proportional, risk-based, and effective implementation, while avoiding unintended consequences and undue administrative burden. They are sector-specific, risk-informed, and grounded in practice, reflecting how accountants and auditors operate and the realities they face. These include:
Effective implementation of the AML Regulation requires maintaining sufficient flexibility within the RTS to enable genuine risk-based approaches. While harmonisation and closing compliance gaps are essential, additional unnecessary prescriptive requirements where these are not mandated in level 1 legislation should be avoided. Overly rigid standards risk constraining professional judgment, limiting adaptation to specific risks, and discouraging innovation.
RTS should be designed in line with the principle of proportionality, ensuring that rules reflect the size, structure, and capacity of different obliged entities. Measures that are feasible for large financial institutions may be unworkable for small accountancy firms. Less-resourced entities are an integral part of the AML/CFT chain; therefore, the RTS must remain effective without being administratively overwhelming and should follow a consistent approach with previous European RTS, guidelines, and related materials.
RTS should recognise the diverse operational realities across and within sectors. Accountants, auditors, and tax advisers operate differently from financial institutions, taking a holistic view of clients rather than a purely transaction-based one. Risk indicators designed for banks rarely translate directly to Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs); within the limits of level 1 legislation, RTS should address sector- and jurisdiction-specific risks in a meaningful and workable way.
Given that most accountancy firms are small or micro-enterprises, applying standards designed for large financial entities without adjustment creates undue burden and undermines effectiveness. A one-size-fits-all approach must be avoided to ensure proportionate, realistic, and fit-for-purpose AML/CFT implementation.
The distinct features, roles, and realities of different DNFBPs sectors such as accountants vary significantly and warrant sector-specific guidance for AML/CFT. Such guidance should be relevant to the types of services provided, calibrated to each sector’s risk profile, and practical for small and medium-sized practitioners (SMPs). AMLA should work closely with relevant sectoral professional bodies so that guidance accurately reflects operational realities and can be effectively applied in practice.
RTS will only be effective if informed by those who implement them. This means establishing formal mechanisms for consultation before and during RTS development, and enabling ongoing feedback based on practical experience. Targeted consultations with different categories of non-financial entities should be conducted.
This will allow obliged entities and supervisors alike to assess feasibility and raise operational concerns early in the process. Public input will help identify inconsistencies, gaps, or unintended consequences, improving the quality and applicability of the final RTS. The development process should therefore be structured, transparent, and inclusive, ensuring meaningful early-stage participation from a wide range of stakeholders, including those beyond the financial sector.
RTS should be published well before they take effect to give obliged entities and supervisors sufficient time to prepare for compliance. A structured transitional framework defining the timeline, sequence, and duration of implementation steps should be established by AMLA and the European Commission.
Definitions of certain key concepts and actors can have significant practical implications. Where level 1 legislation allows, RTS definitions should be precise, targeted and clearly explained to ensure that the rules do not create unintended or disproportionate compliance obligations that do not serve genuine AML/CFT purposes.
