Exploring the EU's Anti-Money Laundering Directives
Intro
As the world grows more interconnected, the need for robust frameworks to combat financial crime becomes increasingly apparent. Money laundering poses a threat not just to individual nations but to the integrity of the global financial system at large. This reality has led to a series of evolving legislative efforts within the European Union aimed at addressing the complexities of this issue.
The European Union's Anti-Money Laundering directives are more than just a collection of rules. They serve as a crucial mechanism designed to prevent financial systems from being exploited for illegal activities, including the financing of terrorism. As we delve into the various aspects of these directives, it becomes essential to understand their implications for investors, traders, and all stakeholders involved in financial transactions.
This article aims to provide a meticulous exploration of these directives, shedding light on their development, the core principles underpinning them, and their practical effect on financial operations across member states. By examining the challenges faced in enforcing these regulations and the strategies employed to overcome them, we hope to foster a deeper understanding of how these directives shape the landscape of financial integrity in the EU.
Background of Anti-Money Laundering Efforts in the EU
Understanding the background of anti-money laundering (AML) efforts in the European Union (EU) is crucial for grasping the current regulatory environment. With globalization and the intricate web of international finance, the need for robust safeguards to protect the financial system has never been more pressing. Money laundering not only poses a significant risk to the integrity of financial institutions, it also undermines the overall economy and can facilitate other criminal activities such as terrorism financing.
Historical Context
The historical context of AML efforts in the EU goes back several decades. In the late 20th century, various countries began to recognize the threat posed by money laundering and its association with organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption. The first major international effort to combat money laundering was the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Following that, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was established in 1989, providing a framework aimed at combatting money laundering on a global scale.
In Europe, early initiatives were more fragmented and varied by country. The EU's first major regulation, the Directive on Money Laundering adopted in 1991, was a response to rising concerns. It primarily focused on the banks and financial institutions, requiring them to implement measures intended to prevent laundering activities. However, it lacked the uniformity needed across member states, resulting in a patchwork of regulations.
Evolution of EU Directives
Over the years, the EU has published multiple directives, each representing a step forward in the fight against money laundering. The evolution of these directives reflects the changing nature of financial crime and the increasing sophistication of launderers.
- The First Directive (1991): Set a foundation with basic requirements for institutions to identify and report suspicious transactions.
- The Second Directive (2001): Expanded definitions and urged member states to enhance cooperation.
- The Third Directive (2005): Introduced a risk-based approach, allowing for a more flexible framework adapted to varying levels of risk across institutions and member states.
- The Fourth Directive (2015): Heightened transparency measures, promoting beneficial ownership disclosures, and called for more stringent due diligence processes.
- The Fifth Directive (2018): Aimed to tackle emerging risks linked to virtual currencies and to strengthen the existing measures further.
These changes not only improved compliance but also enhanced the capacity of member states to cooperate in cross-border investigations. Given the global nature of finance, collaboration between institutions and jurisdictions has become an indispensable component of the AML framework. The constant revisions and adaptations of EU directives signify a recognition that as criminals become more innovative, so too must the strategies to thwart them.
"The tools to combat money laundering will always require adaptation to stay ahead of evolving criminal tactics, reinforcing the significance of a unified and robust regulatory framework."
In summary, the historical context and evolution of AML efforts in the EU underline the necessity and urgency of continual progress in this area. With the establishment of directives tailored to address specific vulnerabilities in the financial system, the EU has made significant strides toward fostering an environment where financial integrity can thrive.
Understanding the Core Principles of EU Directives
The landscape of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) practices in the European Union (EU) is firmly grounded in a set of principles that guide member states in their efforts to combat financial crime. Understanding these core principles not only sheds light on the motivation behind the directives but also highlights how these standards enhance the integrity and resilience of the financial system. The principles encapsulate concepts like risk assessment, proportionality, and the duty of financial institutions to diligently monitor transactions.
These directives serve multiple purposes. They are designed to protect the EU’s economy from risks associated with money laundering and terrorism financing, as well as to ensure that member states foster a unified front in tackling these challenges. The directives bridge the legal gaps that could potentially allow criminal enterprises to exploit financial systems.
Key Definitions
When discussing EU AML directives, specific terminology emerges that is essential for clarity. For instance, money laundering itself can be broadly defined as the process of disguising illegal proceeds as legitimate funds. A clear understanding of these definitions helps in grasping the intention behind the regulations.
- Money Laundering: This involves three stages – placement, layering, and integration.
- Terrorist Financing: Distinct from money laundering, this refers specifically to the funding of activities aimed at furthering terrorism, allowing for a broad spectrum of actions beyond mere financial transactions.
- Customer Due Diligence (CDD): A critical process that financial institutions use to assess the risk presented by a customer.
With these ideas in mind, the directives lay out specific expectations for transparency and accountability.
Risk-Based Approach
One of the cornerstone features of the EU directives is a risk-based approach to AML compliance. This principle empowers financial institutions to allocate resources based on the risks associated with specific clients and transactions. The philosophy here is that not every customer poses the same risk; hence, applying a one-size-fits-all strategy would be both inefficient and counterproductive.
A practical example can be the contrasting treatment of high-net-worth individuals versus everyday customers. Wealthy clients often have complex financial backgrounds and large-scale transactions, which may require deeper scrutiny. In this sense, a robust risk-based approach can involve:
- Conducting thorough background checks.
- Engaging in ongoing monitoring of transactions.
- Adjusting the degree of scrutiny based on shifting risk characteristics.
By facilitating a better allocation of resources, this strategy empowers institutions to focus on genuinely risky areas, thus amplifying the impact of AML measures.
Proportionality and Effectiveness
The principles of proportionality and effectiveness interlink in exciting ways within the context of EU directives. On one hand, proportionality refers to ensuring that the measures taken to combat AML are balanced against the actual risks presented. This means that institutions shouldn't be over-burdened by regulatory demands that far exceed the risk they are addressing.
In practice, this could translate to avoiding excessive data collection that may infringe on customer privacy without yielding valuable insights on risk. The effectiveness of these measures hinges on their practical implementation. It's not just about having rules; it's also about ensuring those rules are enforced appropriately and yield observable outcomes in reducing money laundering incidents.
As a part of this holistic approach, member states are encouraged to adopt measures that are best suited to their unique contexts, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all protocol can often be less effective. Therefore, the emphasis on effectiveness drives home the need for continual assessment and adaptation of AML strategies.
"In the world of financial regulation, flexibility is key. The capability to adapt to the changing landscape is just as important as possessing stringent rules."
By grounding the EU directives in these core principles, the regulatory framework aims not only to provide clear guidelines but also to inspire cooperative efforts among member states in enhancing the overall financial landscape.
Detailed Analysis of Major Directives
Understanding the series of Anti-Money Laundering directives established by the European Union is crucial for recognizing how these regulations shape financial compliance. Each directive represents a face in the ongoing battle against money laundering and the financing of terrorism. By studying these texts, stakeholders—ranging from investors to compliance officers—can grasp the evolution of regulatory frameworks, their adoption challenges, and their broader implications for financial integrity. These directives embody not only legal requirements but also the EU's proactive stance in safeguarding its financial ecosystem from illicit activities.
The First Directive
The First Anti-Money Laundering Directive was adopted in 1991. It marked a pioneering effort by the EU to create a consistent response to the growing money laundering concerns across member states. This directive did set a baseline for member nations regarding customer due diligence and reporting suspicious activities, but its approach tended to be somewhat lax.
Some notable elements included:
- Basic Compliance: The First Directive primarily focused on the banking sector, laying down fundamental compliance measures for client identification.
- Limited Scope: Its coverage did not adequately include non-bank financial institutions.
- Reporting Mechanism: The required reporting was more of a guideline than a stringent mandate, leading to varied interpretations and implementations across states.
While this directive did initiate a framework for tackling money laundering, the lack of comprehensive guidelines led to inconsistencies and inefficiencies in application, revealing a need for more robust measures.
The Second Directive
In 2001, the Second Directive refined and expanded the framework set forth by its predecessor. It introduced more explicit requirements concerning the financial services sector.
Key components included:
- Expanded Scope: The directive extended its reach to a broader range of financial institutions, including insurance companies and certain non-financial entities.
- Enhanced Due Diligence: Obligations were placed on firms to conduct more thorough checks on high-risk clients, emphasizing the importance of understanding the source of their funds.
- Stricter Sanctions: It introduced stricter penalties for non-compliance, creating a more serious deterrent against negligence in AML measures.
This directive aimed at enhancing coordination between member states and established a clear direction in combating money laundering through precision in compliance requirements, yet still faced criticism for its somewhat slow-paced implementation.
The Third Directive
The Third Directive, adopted in 2005, sought to further bolster the fight against money laundering and the financement of terrorism by addressing some of the shortcomings of previous directives.
Highlights of the Third Directive include:
- Globalization Focus: It recognized the increasing interconnectedness of financial systems, emphasizing the need for global cooperation among nations in combating financial crime.
- Risk-Based Approach: This directive was among the first to implement a clear risk-based approach regarding due diligence requirements. Firms were encouraged to tailor their compliance efforts based on the risks associated with their clients.
- Customer Transparency: Required firms to understand not just the clients but also their clientele’s business relationships and holdings to ensure complete transparency.
This was a step toward a more nuanced understanding of risk, reinforcing a proactive framework that forced financial institutions to adopt a broader perspective on compliance.
The Fourth Directive
The Fourth Directive was introduced in 2015, reflecting the EU's commitment to continuously adapt its regulations to fight evolving money laundering threats.
Its significant features included:
- Revised Customer Due Diligence: It tightened the existing rules around customer verification processes and required enhanced due diligence for politically exposed persons (PEPs), recognizing the higher risks associated with such clients.
- Data Sharing: Encouraged member states to improve information sharing among authorities to enhance the prosecution of money laundering cases.
- Director Obligations: Addressed the shortcomings in governance by holding senior management accountable for compliance within their organizations.
The Fourth Directive was seen as a response to global terrorist attacks and financial scandals, aiming to bring the EU's regulations up to speed with international best practices.
The Fifth Directive
The Fifth Directive, implemented in 2018, sought to respond to emerging trends such as the rising significance of cryptocurrencies and the growing concerns surrounding online financial services.
Noteworthy aspects included:
- Inclusion of Cryptocurrency Exchanges: For the first time, the directive extended its reach to include cryptocurrency service providers under AML regulations, attempting to close a crucial gap.
- Beneficial Ownership Transparency: Required member states to establish central registers of beneficial ownership of companies, aimed at revealing complex ownership structures often exploited for money laundering.
- High-Risk Jurisdictions: Emphasized the need for vigilance and closer scrutiny of transactions from high-risk countries.
The Fifth Directive represents a significant advancement in how the EU comprehends and addresses financial threats, allowing it to remain relevant amidst rapidly changing financial landscapes.
The pattern of evolving directives illustrates not only an institutional response to a changing financial environment but also the growing importance of international cooperation in combating money laundering.
Each directive builds upon its predecessors, underlining a persistent journey towards a more unified and effective regulatory framework within the EU to safeguard its financial markets against illegal activities.
Implementation Challenges Across Member States
The implementation of EU Anti-Money Laundering directives presents significant challenges for member states. These challenges can hinder the common goal of enhancing the integrity of the financial system across the union. It’s pertinent to grasp that the effectiveness of these directives depends significantly on how harmoniously they are adopted and enforced within each country's unique legal and financial landscape.
Variability in Adoption
One of the primary hurdles is the variability in adoption of the directives. Each member state interprets and enacts guidelines in a manner that best fits its existing legal framework and cultural practices. This often leads to inconsistencies. For instance, while some countries may quickly set up robust regulatory frameworks, others may take a more relaxed approach, consequently widening the gap in compliance levels across the EU.
- Examples of Variability:
- Country A might have stringent reporting requirements and impose hefty fines for non-compliance, while
- Country B could still be deliberating over the implications of the directives, lacking proper enforcement mechanisms.
This uneven implementation creates a patchwork of regulatory environments, which can be exploited by those with ill intentions. Without a consistent approach, the financial system remains vulnerable to money laundering and other illicit activities.
Resource Limitations
Moreover, resource limitations pose a daunting challenge. Many countries face significant gaps in financial and human resources that hinder effective compliance with AML directives.
- Human Resources:
- Financial Resources:
- The shortage of trained personnel familiar with AML regulations means that compliance teams may not be adequately prepared to detect and report suspicious activities.
- Countries with fewer resources struggle to attract the talent required to build a competent and effective oversight framework.
- Budget constraints can impact the allocation of funds necessary for technology upgrades and the implementation of sophisticated monitoring systems.
- Countries with tighter budgets are more likely to deprioritize AML initiatives, leaving them less equipped to handle unique money laundering threats.
These limitations are not just isolated issues; they form a conjoined problem that underscores the urgency of a cohesive, EU-wide approach to resource allocation for anti-money laundering efforts.
Interagency Coordination Issues
Lastly, interagency coordination issues further complicate matters. In many member states, multiple agencies are responsible for different facets of AML compliance. This often leads to a lack of unified strategy and the duplication of efforts among these agencies. Proper collaboration is crucial for identifying and mitigating risks associated with money laundering effectively.
- Coordination Failures:
- Agencies may collect data separately without sharing important insights, which can lead to missed opportunities for catching suspicious transactions.
- Moreover, differing priorities between agencies can result in conflicting interests, making cohesive policy implementation nearly impossible.
As regulations evolve, so too must the strategies for implementation, ensuring a comprehensive and unified approach to AML compliance across the EU.
Technological Innovations Impacting AML Compliance
In the realm of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) efforts, the role of technology cannot be overstated. Technological innovations are revolutionizing the approach that financial institutions take toward compliance. They not only enhance efficiency but also bolster the overall effectiveness of detecting and preventing money laundering activities. As financial systems become more complex and sophisticated, the tools to combat illicit activities must evolve in tandem.
The importance of adopting such innovations is paramount. Financial institutions are often in a race against time when it comes to identifying suspicious activities. New technologies can provide essential support and create an ecosystem where compliance doesn't feel like an uphill battle. Moreover, the integration of digital advancements can assist in navigating the labyrinth of regulatory requirements efficiently.
Key benefits of these emerging technologies include:
- Enhanced Data Analysis: With the amount of data generated daily, employing advanced analytics is vital for identifying patterns and anomalies that could indicate money laundering.
- Increased Efficiency: Automation of routine tasks allows compliance officers to focus on more complex and significant issues, potentially reducing the time taken to investigate suspicious activities.
- Improved Risk Assessment: Technologies allow financial institutions to assess risk factors in real-time, providing proactive measures rather than reactive ones.
However, as institutions warm up to these innovations, they must also consider some elements that could pose challenges. These include:
- Cost of Implementation: Adopting sophisticated technology can come with a hefty price tag, which might be a deterrent for some institutions.
- Data Privacy Concerns: Compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations remains a critical aspect that could complicate the use of advanced technologies.
The Role of Blockchain Technology
Blockchain technology has emerged as a game-changer in the fight against money laundering. It operates on a decentralized and transparent ledger system, making it increasingly difficult for illicit activities to go unnoticed. Every transaction recorded on a blockchain is visible to all participants within the network, fostering an environment of accountability.
One of the main benefits of blockchain technology in AML efforts is traceability. Transactions can be tracked back to their origin, providing insights into the flow of money and swiftly identifying any unusual patterns. This transparency can deter potential criminals from even attempting to launder funds, knowing that their activities could easily be spotted.
In addition, blockchain’s tamper-proof nature adds a layer of security. For instance, once a transaction is logged, it cannot be altered without consensus from the network. Such features provide a solid framework for monitoring financial transactions effectively.
Artificial Intelligence in Transaction Monitoring
Artificial Intelligence (AI) adds another robust dimension to AML compliance. By leveraging machine learning algorithms, financial institutions can analyze vast volumes of transactions in real time. AI tools can learn from historical data, recognizing patterns of behavior that deviate from the norm.
The implementation of AI can significantly reduce false positives in transaction monitoring. Traditional systems often trigger alerts based on rule-based criteria that may not account for legitimate transactions. On the contrary, AI continuously improves its detection capabilities and refines its models based on new data, which is essential in enhancing accuracy.
Furthermore, AI-driven systems can operate 24/7, providing constant surveillance without downtime. This ensures that suspicious activities are evaluated instantly, making it easier to respond promptly, which is crucial in minimizing financial losses.
"By weaving together advanced technologies like blockchain and AI, financial institutions not only reinforce their AML strategies but also prepare themselves for the inevitable future of compliance where technology is a key player."
In sum, the integration of technological innovations in AML compliance presents opportunities that, if harnessed correctly, can lead to effective deterrents against money laundering while ensuring that regulatory demands are met efficiently.
Case Studies of Compliance and Breaches
Examining case studies of both successful implementations and notable failures regarding the EU's Anti-Money Laundering directives serves as a crucial step in understanding the effectiveness and challenges associated with these regulations. These case studies not only highlight practical applications of the directives but also underline potential weaknesses that can be exploited, informing both policymakers and financial institutions about improvements needed to ensure compliance. An effective analysis of past compliance efforts and breaches brings to light the lessons learned, thereby guiding future strategies for managing money laundering risks.
Successful Implementations
Success in the realm of AML compliance often hinges on a well-coordinated response among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement agencies. A prime example of a successful implementation can be seen in Latvia, where the government and financial sector joined forces after a series of high-profile money laundering scandals. Following the European Banking Authority's feedback, they reformed their regulatory frameworks and upgraded their compliance measures, resulting in a significant drop in illicit activities.
- Strong Regulatory Oversight: Latvia instituted stricter checks and balances, ensuring that banks were not only aware of the laws but actively enforcing them.
- Training and Awareness Programs: Financial institutions began rolling out comprehensive training for their staff to alert them about the red flags in transactions. This enhanced the ability to identify suspicious activities early on.
- Inter-agency Collaboration: Cooperation between different sectors, such as financial institutions and law enforcement, was emphasized. As a result, there was a more fluid exchange of information leading to rapid responses to potential threats.
This example demonstrates how building a culture of transparency and accountability can yield tangible results in combating money laundering while preserving the integrity of the financial system.
Notable Failures and Lessons Learned
However, not all efforts to implement AML directives have been effective. Notable failures can provide powerful lessons about what went wrong and highlight areas for improvement. One of the most infamous examples is the case of Danske Bank in Estonia, where it was revealed that over €200 billion in suspicious transactions flowed through its accounts between 2007 and 2015.
- Lack of Proper Oversight: The failure to properly supervise and regulate the bank allowed vast sums of money to bypass detection. This case underscores the importance of robust compliance frameworks that cannot be easily undermined.
- Cultural Issues Within the Institution: A corporate culture that prioritized profit motives over compliance led employees to overlook dubious activities. This imbalance must be addressed by fostering a mindset where compliance is part of the core business philosophy.
- Inadequate Technology Utilization: While many institutions are adopting advanced technologies, Danske Bank’s reliance on outdated systems hampered their ability to monitor transactions effectively. Modern AML efforts must focus not only on regulatory adherence but should also leverage technology to enhance monitoring capabilities.
A detailed examination into such notable failures reinforces the concept that compliance is not simply about ticking boxes but requires sustained effort, modernization of technologies, and a cultural shift within organizations.
"The road to regulatory compliance is rarely straightforward; each misstep offers a chance to build a sturdier framework for the future."
By scrutinizing success stories alongside failures, EU member states can glean invaluable insights that can shape more resilient AML strategies moving forward, ultimately contributing towards a more secure financial ecosystem.
Future Directions in AML Regulation
As the landscape of financial crime continues to evolve, so too must the architecture of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations within the European Union. Understanding the future directions in AML regulation is integral not only for compliance but for the sustainability and integrity of financial systems across the EU. This section delves into potential amendments to existing directives alongside global trends that could influence the EU's regulatory posture.
Proposed Amendments to Current Directives
Recent evaluations of the effectiveness of existing AML directives have prompted calls for amendments. One area that stands out is enhancing the transparency of beneficial ownership. While current regulations require the disclosure of ownership details, the demand for a more precise and consistent approach is growing. Investors and analysts may find it increasingly crucial to know who exactly is behind corporate entities in order to assess risk effectively.
Additional amendments could focus on broadening the scope of obligated entities. For instance:
- Expanding Coverage: Beyond banks and financial institutions, include real estate agents, art dealers, and online gambling platforms.
- Harmonization Across Member States: Establish uniform standards that eliminate discrepancies in how AML laws are implemented and enforced.
- Stricter Penalties for Non-compliance: Enhance the repercussions for failure to comply with AML regulations; this could serve as a deterrent while encouraging adherence.
Such amendments would not only mitigate risks but bolster the EU’s framework against financial misconduct.
Global Trends and EU's Position
In the wider context of global regulations, the EU's stance on AML is being shaped by several key trends. In particular, there is a noticeable push towards greater international cooperation. Nations are increasingly realizing that money laundering and terrorist financing are not confined by borders. Collaborative frameworks like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) serve as an example of how countries can work together to create a cohesive response to these threats.
Key considerations include:
- Data Sharing Initiatives: Enhanced mechanisms for sharing intelligence among EU member states could lead to identifying suspicious transactions more swiftly.
- Technological Adaptations: Countries outside the EU are investing in new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to bolster compliance. The EU must consider adopting similar approaches to stay competitive and effective.
- Mindful of Global Standards: As the standards set by global bodies become the norm, it is vital for the EU to align its regulatory frameworks to avoid being seen as a weak link in the international effort against financial crimes.
"As we look into the horizon of AML regulations, one thing is clear: the time for reactive compliance is over. Proactivity and global collaboration are the new mantras for effective AML efforts."
The potential for an updated approach in both proposed amendments and responsiveness to global trends presents an opportunity for the EU to redefine and strengthen its commitment to combating financial crimes effectively. In doing so, they can ensure a more robust financial environment, which is paramount for attractting savvy investors and fostering economic stability in the region.
Concluding Thoughts on AML in the EU
In drawing the curtain on our exploration into the realm of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) in the European Union, it’s imperative to grasp the significance of these directives not only from a regulatory standpoint but also in terms of fostering financial integrity across diverse ecosystems. As we look ahead into a future increasingly shaped by technology and globalization, the role of effective AML measures is paramount.
The evolving landscape of financial crimes presents new challenges, making it essential to adapt continuously. The EU's directives highlight a proactive stance by its institutions to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. But this journey doesn’t simply end with the implementation of these directives.
Emphasizing key elements, benefits, and considerations:
- Streamlined Cooperation: These directives facilitate better collaboration between EU member states and financial institutions, ensuring a coordinated response to cross-border financial crimes.
- Consumer Confidence: By fostering transparency and accountability, AML regulations help build trust in financial systems, thus encouraging investments from both domestic and international players.
- Risk Mitigation: The underlying principles encourage a risk-based approach, which helps identify vulnerabilities and allocate resources more effectively, preventing vast amounts of illicit funds from penetrating the economy.
While challenges remain—such as variations in implementation and the continuous evolution of organized crime—this reflection serves to underscore that AML is not merely a legal obligation, but a shared responsibility that ultimately safeguards the integrity of the financial system.
Summary of Key Points
To encapsulate the discussion, though the EU has made strides in establishing a robust framework for AML, a few key points emerge:
- Historical Context & Evolution: The directives illustrate a progressive timeline of responses to the increasing complexity of money laundering activities.
- Core Principles: These include a risk-based approach and the essential balance of proportionality and effectiveness, ensuring that measures are both appropriate and adequate.
- Implementation Challenges: Disparities in integration among member states highlight the need for cohesive strategies, technological innovation, and better resource allocation.
- Future Directions: The ongoing assessments and proposed amendments reflect the dynamic nature of AML regulations, which must adapt to new threats in a tech-driven landscape.
The Importance of Continued Vigilance
The essence of continued vigilance in the field of AML cannot be overstated. Financial criminal activities constantly evolve, adopting new methodologies and exploiting emerging technologies. As such:
- Regular Updates: It is crucial to regularly review and adjust directives to stay one step ahead of criminal organizations.
- Training and Awareness: Financial institutions and relevant stakeholders must prioritize educating employees on compliance and ethical standards to create a culture of accountability.
- Public-Private Collaboration: Engaging in open dialogues between governments and financial entities can nurture a supportive environment that shares intelligence and best practices.
"Vigilance is the price of liberty; it must always be high."
This adage remains remarkably pertinent, underscoring that a reactive stance is simply not enough. Rather, a proactive approach—grounded in cooperation, education, and adaptability—is vital in sustaining the fight against money laundering and ensuring that the financial systems within the EU remain clean and resilient.
