Response to consultation on draft amending Guidelines on risk based supervision

Go back

1. Do you have any comments with the proposed changes to the ‘Subject matter, scope and definitions’?

One of the main changes supposes to cover subject matter, scope, and definitions. However, it brings no merit change except for referencing the new regulation. What needs to be added are crypto-assets-related definitions or a clear explanation of their source (in case the EBA does use the terminology used in some other documents). Otherwise, the ambiguity of the Guidelines level would rise, and their practical input would drop.

3. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the Guideline 4.2 ‘Step 1 – Identification of risk and mitigating factors’?

The proposed change in paragraph 31 and, to some extent, paragraph 45 letter a) adds to the catalogue of information sources "outcomes of analysis of advanced analytics tools such as blockchain analytics." Although such a new source of information is highly desired, it needs to be clarified regarding the scope of advanced analytics tools. The reference to ambiguous blockchain analytics is a mere explanation, especially now, when professionals and academics worldwide warn businesses and officials of improper usage of AI-based solutions. The current wording of the proposed change does not address any of such concerns. At the same time, it is not explained what the actual outcomes are to be used - is it a report, a file, or maybe an NFT encrypted with the result of the analysis?

5. Do you have any comments with the proposed changes to the Guideline 4.4 ‘Step 3 – Supervision’?

The new version of paragraph 125's catalogue of guidance indicators is extended by "concerns about the quality and usefulness of suspicious transaction reports." However, the new one seems far more concrete compared to other indicators. For example, paragraph 125, letter c) stands for "evidence of de-risking in some sectors or subjects of assessment, or evidence that subjects of assessment avoid risks rather than manage them effectively." In that sense, the question of the new indicator's purpose arises. It shall be noted that paragraph 125 contains an open catalogue, which means that the new indicator could have been considered before without any change to paragraph 125.
The newly added paragraph 133A refers to the training of external parties within the authorities' training program. Yet, the Guidelines do not mention the prerequisites of the legitimate usage of the external parties and the scope of their participation in authorities' activities. Does it mean such prerequisites and other rules shall be included in different guidelines, or shall they come from the law applicable to the authorities' actions?

Name of the organization

Polish Financial Association (ZPF)