Information session about fit and proper assessments DNB
On Tuesday 28th May from 3:00-4:45 PM CET DNB will organize an online information session about fit and proper assessments.
Read more Information session about fit and proper assessments DNBYou are using an outdated browser. DNB.nl works best with:
Do payment initiation service providers (PISPs) have to perform transaction monitoring?
Published: 24 November 2022
On 1 March 2021, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final revised Guidelines on money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF) risk factors. The EBA has included new ML/TF risk factors. We have amended these Q&As on the basis of the revised Guidelines.
Pursuant to Section 3(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act (Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme – Wwft), PISPs must monitor transactions conducted by their customers1 to prevent their services from being used for money laundering or terrorist financing. It is important that they monitor transactions adequately, even if payment service providers (such as banks) have the same obligation.
The Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht - Wft) defines a payment initiation service as:
“a service for initiating a payment order at the request of a payment service user with respect to a payment account held with another payment service provider."
These service providers fall under the Wwft pursuant to Section 1a(1) of that act. We qualify the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing inherent in this specific type of service provider as low. This is because a PISP does not conduct any transactions itself or hold any funds for a payment service user. This type of payment institution must take less far-reaching measures in terms of customer due diligence and transaction monitoring than institutions with a higher risk.
It also means that a PISP is allowed to perform its transaction monitoring in a risk-based manner. As a minimum, a PISP must carry out periodic post-event checks on the initiated payment orders, taking at least the following risk factors into account:
Other risk factors that may also be relevant include amounts that differ from a transaction pattern, the frequency and volume of initiated payment orders and insufficient economic rationale for a specific transaction.
Like a bank, a payment institution fulfils a gatekeeper role and is responsible for monitoring its transactions. Furthermore, a bank only has insight into transactions that involve the accounts of individual payment service providers. A PISP, by contrast, in some cases has insight into sets of transactions performed, for example, through multiple account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs), which provides it with an overall view of those ASPSPs. As a result, a PISP may be better placed than a single ASPSP to assess whether specific transactions are unusual in terms of money laundering or terrorist financing. When a PISP detects an unusual transaction of this nature, it must report it to FIU-NL without undue delay.
As stated above, a risk-based approach can be taken to transaction monitoring. For example, a PISP may use peer groups of similar customers to compare individual customers' transaction behaviour with that of their peer group. In addition, for low-risk customers or groups of customers, it may decide to lower the frequency or decrease the scope of its transaction monitoring. A further risk mitigating factor is the fact that a customer initiates a payment order to a country in the European Economic Area (EEA) or a third country whose requirements for anti-money laundering and the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) are at least as robust as in the Netherlands. For more information about transaction monitoring, please refer to our guidance document on post-event transaction monitoring for payment service providers (available in Dutch).
Foreign PISPs that provide direct cross-border services in the Netherlands, and not via a branch office or agency are subject to the anti-money laundering rules of their Member State of origin. They do not fall under the Wwft.
Pursuant to Section 3(2) under d of the Wwft, PISPs must monitor initiated payment orders for unusual features. Transaction monitoring processes must always be risk-based. On this basis, the conclusion is that the more risk factors apply, the more intensive the monitoring should be. Conversely, the fewer risk factors apply, the less intensive the transaction monitoring can be.
[1]Section 1(1) of the Wwft defines a customer as the natural or legal person with which a business relationship is entered into or on whose behalf a transaction is conducted.
On Tuesday 28th May from 3:00-4:45 PM CET DNB will organize an online information session about fit and proper assessments.
Read more Information session about fit and proper assessments DNBHow does one bring the professional oath to life in daily practice? Representatives from the financial sector and the supervisory authorities tackled this question at the DNB seminar on the professional oath in late 2022.
Read more The professional oath in daily practiceIn view of our continued support for a deeper and more integrated European Capital Markets Union (CMU), De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) and the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) present next steps to shape the right policies and create a competitive European capital market.
Read more DNB and AFM: recommendations for a strong European Capital Markets UnionEffective 1 March 2024, Aerdt Houben will be our new Director of the European Banks Supervision Division, while Pieter Reinier Maat succeeds him as Director of the Financial Markets Division. Lex van 't Spijker succeeds Pieter Reinier as Director of the National Institutions Supervision Division.
Read more DNB appoints new divisional directorsWe use cookies to optimise the user-friendliness of our website.
Read more about the cookies we use and the data they collect in our cookie notice.