In Might 2023, a bunch of paytech representatives referred to as on legislators to make sure a good enjoying discipline for all fintech suppliers and their obligations to performing buyer due diligence (CDD) because the EU anti-money laundering regulation was mentioned. Eight months later, the identical teams have referred to as on legislators to make clear the compromise textual content reached on recital 34 of the AML Regulation within the technical trilogues.
The organisations in search of this clarification are the European Third Get together Suppliers Affiliation (ETPPA), the European Fintech Affiliation (EFA), the Digital Cash Affiliation (EMA) and the European Fee Establishments Federation (EPIF). There are fears that European fee initiation providers (PIS) may very well be in danger with out additional clarification of recital 34.
In response to the organisations, recital 34 must be additional clarified in two essential respects. They’ve mentioned that this may be carried out throughout the realm of the already current political settlement. In any other case, it is going to be
not possible for European PISPs to compete with different fee options corresponding to card acquirers (Visa/Mastercard), ApplePay and Ideally suited/EPI, all of whom need to carry out due diligence solely on the service provider to whom they supply providers.
Clarification required
The companies identified {that a} person of PIS by no means has an account or steadiness with the PISP, however the PISP merely initiates a fee from the person’s current checking account. That is much like how playing cards, ApplePay, GooglePay, Ideally suited/EPI, and many others. work. In all of those instances, the acquirer, i.e. the supplier of the service to the service provider has an obligation to carry out CDD on their buyer, the service provider, however by no means on the payer.
It’s the understanding of the companies that the intention of Recital 34 has all the time been to make clear {that a} PISP’s CDD obligations are vis-a-vis the service provider solely, not the payer, i.e to permit European PISPs to compete on a stage enjoying discipline. They clarify that the compromise’s wording nevertheless is just not clear about this and leaves room for numerous interpretations, together with one the place additionally the payer may come into the scope of CDD if the payer makes use of the providers of a PISP a number of occasions.
To be clear, payers by no means get into the CDD scope of e.g a card acquirer, independently of what number of occasions they use such providers or what quantities they pay. This may be clarified on the technical stage, particularly, on condition that Article 15 has already been amended to make clear that PISPs’ CDD obligations in relation to occasional transactions are vis-a-vis the service provider, not the payer.
The identical clarification must be made with regard to the institution of a enterprise relationship, to make clear that additionally right here, such relationship is barely established vis-a-vis the service provider (not the payer).
Not discriminating PIS assortment
The second concern raised by the organisations pertains to the fully new proposed final sentence of Recital 34. It seems to be discriminating PIS towards playing cards and all different fee sorts when combining it with amassing the funds on behalf of the payee, i.e. service provider.
Of their view, Recital 34 ought to moderately make clear {that a} amassing PSP has to carry out its related CDD obligations, unbiased of whether or not the PSP offers PIS per se or not; within the case a PSP additionally offers PIS, the CDD obligation of the PSP is in direction of the service provider, each for the supply of PIS and the supply of fee assortment, as was recommended by the Parliament.
All of the companies are assured that this matter might be addressed on the technical stage on condition that the present wording of the Recital is just not aligned with the remainder of the AML framework, which has a fee amassing PSP performing CDD on the payee/service provider, and seems outright discriminatory.
An pressing matter
If the most recent draft compromise textual content for recital 34 turns into regulation, there could be an excessive detriment for PIS, Europe’s home-grown fee answer.
As such, ETPPA, EMA, EPIF, EFA and OFA name on the European co-legislators to make sure in AMLR technical trilogues that Recital 34 of the AML Regulation makes it 100 per cent clear that merchant-facing PISPs ought to carry out CDD on the payee solely, each by way of the institution of a buyer relationship and for infrequent transactions, and regardless of whether or not they contact payee (service provider) funds or not.
