In Might 2023, a gaggle of paytech representatives known as on legislators to make sure a good taking part in subject 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 known as on legislators to make clear the compromise textual content reached on recital 34 of the AML Regulation within the technical trilogues.
The organisations on the lookout for this clarification are the European Third Occasion 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 cost initiation providers (PIS) could possibly be in danger with out additional clarification of recital 34.
In accordance with the organisations, recital 34 must be additional clarified in two essential respects. They’ve mentioned that this may be performed throughout the realm of the already present political settlement. In any other case, will probably be
not possible for European PISPs to compete with different cost options equivalent to card acquirers (Visa/Mastercard), ApplePay and Perfect/EPI, all of whom should carry out due diligence solely on the service provider to whom they supply providers.
Clarification required
The corporations identified {that a} person of PIS by no means has an account or stability with the PISP, however the PISP merely initiates a cost from the person’s present checking account. That is much like how playing cards, ApplePay, GooglePay, Perfect/EPI, and so forth. 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 corporations that the intention of Recital 34 has at all times 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 degree taking part in subject. They clarify that the compromise’s wording nevertheless just isn’t 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 instances.
To be clear, payers by no means get into the CDD scope of e.g a card acquirer, independently of what number of instances they use such providers or what quantities they pay. This may be clarified on the technical degree, specifically, provided 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 needs to be made with regard to the institution of a enterprise relationship, to make clear that additionally right here, such relationship is simply 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 in opposition to playing cards and all different cost varieties when combining it with accumulating the funds on behalf of the payee, i.e. service provider.
Of their view, Recital 34 ought to reasonably make clear {that a} accumulating PSP has to carry out its related CDD obligations, impartial 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 the direction of the service provider, each for the supply of PIS and the supply of cost assortment, as was instructed by the Parliament.
All of the corporations are assured that this matter may be addressed on the technical degree provided that the present wording of the Recital just isn’t aligned with the remainder of the AML framework, which has a cost accumulating 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 cost 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 irrespective of whether or not they contact payee (service provider) funds or not.