Response to consultation on proposed RTS in the context of the EBA’s response to the European Commission’s Call for advice on new AMLA mandates

Go back

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the approach proposed by the EBA to assess and classify the risk profile of obliged entities?

First and moreover we would like to state that it is incorrect to require non-profit organizations (NPOs), often volunteer organisations - such as ANBIs and associations, to name and register a UBO (ultimate beneficial owner) in the Trade Register.

For most volunteer organisations the key point is that their “ultimate owner” is the public benefit purpose they serve — not a person. By law, no individual can benefit from the assets of an ANBI or SBBI (Institutions Serving the Social Interest) if it is closed down. The rules are strict and leave no doubt about this.

The same applies to many associations, which also do not have private owners or individuals who benefit personally. For both ANBIs and associations – often referred to as SBBI’s (Institutions Serving the Social Interest) - requiring a UBO creates confusion and goes against their legal structure and purpose. The obligation of doing this even creates resentment.

1) Importance of risk based approach

We ask the European Banking Authority (EBA) to clearly support the risk-based approach in case of associations and foundations. In our view, the current draft puts too much focus on strict, rule-based checks.

The draft should help assess each entity’s risk level using an automated scoring system. But this system should not ignore specific national or organizational situations. Relying only on general data and fixed indicators can create rigid risk categories and misjudgement which can be falsely in the disadvantage of volunteer organisations.

A better method would be a two-step process: first, use automated scoring based on objective data; then allow to adjust manually the results based on professional judgment.

We also recommend keeping data requests to a minimum, since most volunteers do their valuable work in their spare time and an already heavy regulatory burden. Entities should only be asked for information that is truly necessary to assess AML/CFT risks.

While the EBA’s overall method follows international standards from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)—looking at inherent risk, controls, and residual risk—we are concerned that relying on a single, fixed set of data points could weaken the effectiveness of the risk-based approach and hurt volunteer organisations.

2) For associations and foundations recognition exception of the measures regarding UBO's

Volunteer organisations in the form of associations are low-risk and should be excluded from UBO (ultimate beneficial owner) requirements.

Many non-profit organizations (NPOs) operate as informal or unregistered associations—like community groups, cultural clubs, or local initiatives. These groups often avoid formal registration due to cost or complexity, and usually have small budgets. Ever more organisation make the transition from formal to informal for the same reasons. Members may use personal or group bank accounts, which can lead to derisking by banks. We recommend that in such cases, risk-based due diligence should apply, without automatically leading to derisking.

Regarding the Dutch "Stichting" (foundation): while it translates as “foundation,” it does not match the international definition of a foundation or an express trust.

This raises a key issue: under the AML Regulation, should a Stichting be classified as a legal entity (Article 22(1)(b)) or as an express trust (Article 22(1)(c))?

Because international standards often treat foundations like trusts, they may be subject to overly strict rules. But due to its unique legal form, a Dutch Stichting should not be treated as a trust. The confusion partly arises from the varied uses of a Stichting, including as a STAK (trust office foundation).

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed relationship between inherent risk and residual risk, whereby residual risk can be lower, but never be higher, than inherent risk? Would you favour another approach instead, whereby the obliged entity’s residual risk score can be worse than its inherent risk score? If so, please set out your rationale and provide evidence of the impact the EBA’s proposal would have.

3a: What will be the impact, in terms of cost, for credit and financial institutions to provide this new set of data in the short, medium and long term?

Number of NPOs and number of NPOs with cross-border transactions to/from non-EEA countries

Listing non-profit organizations (NPOs) - amongst which many volunteer organisations - as a risk just because they are NPOs is unfair and not based on international standards. Only very very few NPOs may pose a risk for money laundering or terrorism financing, and many already have strong safeguards in place. Treating all NPOs as risky could lead banks to stop serving them, which harms their important work. This has happened before and is warned against by international bodies like the FATF and the EU. Cross-border transactions alone also don't automatically mean higher risk. Overall, the proposal is not balanced or fair and could hurt the work NPOs do to help people around the world.

Total Number of projects funded for philanthropic purposes in the previous year

Labeling crowdfunding for good causes as risky is unfair and not supported by evidence. This could lead to banks avoiding nonprofit crowdfunding platforms, which harms their work. A 2021 report by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies found no clear evidence that donation-based crowdfunding in Europe is used for terrorism financing. Including this risk factor without proof goes against international standards and fair practices. Moreover we would like to state that the more projects are funded, the more society and European democracy benefits. It is for good reason the United Nations declared 2026 as the International Year of Volunteers for Sustainable Development (IVY 2026). Overall the entirety of European institutions should encourage donating and volunteering for the benefit of us all.

3b: Among the data points listed in the Annex I to this consultation paper, what are those that are not currently available to most credit and financial institutions?

3c: To what extent could the data points listed in Annex I to this Consultation Paper be provided by the non-financial sector?

Question 4: Do you have any comments on the proposed frequency at which risk profiles would be reviewed (once per year for the normal frequency and once every three years for the reduced frequency)? What would be the difference in the cost of compliance between the normal and reduced frequency? Please provide evidence.

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed criteria for the application of the reduced frequency? What alternative criteria would you propose? Please provide evidence.

Question 6: When assessing the geographical risks to which obliged entities are exposed, should crossborder transactions linked with EEA jurisdictions be assessed differently than transactions linked with third countries? Please set out your rationale and provide evidence.

Question 1: Do you agree with the thresholds and provided in Article 1 of the draft RTS and their value? If you do not agree, which thresholds to assess the materiality of the activities exercised under the freedom to provide services should the EBA propose instead? Please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact the EBA’s proposal and your proposal would have.

Question 2: What is your view on the possibility to lower the value of the thresholds that are set in article 1 of the draft RTS? What would be the possible impact of doing so? Please provide evidence.

Question 3: Do you agree on having a single threshold on the number of customers, irrespective of whether they are retail or institutional customers? Alternatively, do you think a distinction should be made between these two categories? Please explain the rationale and provide evidence to support your view.

Question 4: Do you agree that the methodology for selection provided in this RTS builds on the methodology laid down in the RTS under article 40(2)? If you do not agree, please provide your rationale and evidence of the impact the EBA’s proposal and your proposal would have.

Number of NPOs and number of NPOs with cross-border transactions to/from non-EEA countries

Total Number of projects funded for philanthropic purposes in the previous year

Question 5: Do you agree that the selection methodology should not allow the adjustment of the inherent risk score provided in article 2 of draft under article 40(2) AMLD6? If you do not agree, please provide the rationale and evidence of the impact the EBA’s proposal would have.

Question 6: Do you agree with the methodology for the calculation of the group-wide score that is laid down in article 5 of the RTS? If you do not agree, please provide the rationale for it and provide evidence of the impact the EBA’s proposal and your proposal would have.

Question 7: Do you have any concern with the identification of the group-wide perimeter? Please provide the rationale and the evidence to support your view on this.

Question 8: Do you agree to give the same consideration to the parent company and the other entities of the group for the determination of the group-wide risk profile? Do you agree this would reliably assess the group-wide controls effectiveness even if the parent company has a low-relevant activity compared to the other entities?

Question 9: Do you agree with the transitional rules set out in Article 6 of this RTS? In case you don’t, please provide the rationale for it and provide evidence of the impact the EBA’s proposal and your proposal would have.

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 1 of the draft RTS? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

We are concerned about proposed EU rules (RTS under the AMLR) that could place unfair burdens on non-profit organizations (NPOs), including public-benefit foundations and donation-based crowdfunding platforms. Although FATF Recommendation 8 states that anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) measures should not disrupt legitimate NPO activity, the current proposals risk doing just that.

Key concerns include:

Articles 13 & 14: These should align with Article 59(2) AMLR, which exempts NPOs from listing individual beneficiaries, as they serve the general public. A description of the beneficiary group should suffice unless it’s a private interest trust.
Article 16(a) & (b): Asking NPOs to predict the value, volume, and frequency of transactions is unrealistic, especially for those relying on fundraising or responding to emergencies. Guidance is needed to ensure deviations from estimates do not automatically raise red flags.
Donation-based crowdfunding platforms: These will become "obliged entities" under the AMLR for the first time, regardless of whether they serve private or public interest. Many lack the resources to meet heavy compliance requirements. A 2021 study by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) found no consistent evidence that such platforms are being misused for terrorism financing, suggesting the risk is low.

We recommend exemptions or simplified due diligence rules for donation-based crowdfunding platforms, particularly for small donors. Due diligence should instead focus on those seeking funds, not those giving them.

The proposed rules risk harming legitimate charitable work and financial inclusion, and they contradict FATF’s evolving guidance, which now acknowledges that AML/CFT rules themselves can be a barrier to inclusion.

Question 2: Do you have any comments regarding Article 6 on the verification of the customer in a non face-to-face context? Do you think that the remote solutions, as described under Article 6 paragraphs 2-6 would provide the same level of protection against identity fraud as the electronic identification means described under Article 6 paragraph 1 (i.e. e-IDAS compliant solutions)? Do you think that the use of such remote solutions should be considered only temporary, until such time when e-IDAS-compliant solutions are made available? Please explain your reasoning.

Question 3: Do you have any comments regarding Article 8 on virtual IBANS? If so, please explain your reasoning.

Question 4: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 2 of the draft RTS? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 3 of the draft RTS? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 4 of the draft RTS? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

In relation to section 4, we would like to highlight that the meaning of the phrase “the person on whose behalf or for the benefit of whom a transaction or activity is being conducted” is unclear when applied to non-profit organisations and crowdfunding platforms since volunteer organisations serve a public benefit.

Question 7: What are the specific sectors or financial products or services which, because they are associated with lower ML/TF risks, should benefit from specific sectoral simplified due diligence measures to be explicitly spelled out under Section 4 of the daft RTS? Please explain your rationale and provide evidence.

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 5 of the draft RTS? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

Our concerns are about Articles 25–27 of the proposed AML framework, which introduce new enhanced due diligence requirements that are poorly suited to non-profit organisations (NPOs) – amongst which many volunteer organisations - and could lead to derisking or blocked transfers.

Key concerns include:

Article 25(1) requires information on the legitimacy of fund destinations, possibly including data from authorities. For NPOs—especially those operating in conflict zones or authoritarian countries—this is often impossible or dangerous, and could lead to financial exclusion.
Article 26(1)(a) demands proof of income for beneficial owners (BOs). In the NPO sector, board members are often considered BOs, even though they usually serve voluntarily and have no financial stake en work solely for the public benefit. This requirement is irrelevant and burdensome.
Article 27(c) requires information on the legitimacy of all parties involved in a transaction. For NPOs working with small or informal partners abroad, such verification is unrealistic, especially in humanitarian or grassroots contexts.

We recommend exemptions for NPOs from these requirements, noting that the current rules are disproportionate and could harm the sector’s ability to operate effectively.

Question 9: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 6 of the draft RTS? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

Question 10: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 7 of the draft RTS? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

Question 11: Do you agree with the proposals as set out in Section 8 of the draft RTS (and in Annex I linked to it)? If you do not agree, please explain your rationale and provide evidence of the impact this section would have, including the cost of compliance, if adopted as such?

Question 1: Do you any have comments or suggestions regarding the proposed list of indicators to classify the level of gravity of breaches sets out in Article 1 of the draft RTS? If so, please explain your reasoning.

Question 2: Do you have any comments or suggestions on the proposed classification of the level of gravity of breaches sets out in Article 2 of the draft RTS? If so, please explain your reasoning.

Question 3: Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding the proposed list of criteria to be taken into account when setting up the level of pecuniary sanctions of Article 4 of the draft RTS? If so, please explain your reasoning.

Question 4: Do you have any comments or suggestions of addition regarding what needs to be taken into account as regards the financial strength of the legal or natural person held responsible (Article 4(5) and Article 4(6) of the draft RTS)? If so, please explain.

5a: restrict or limit the business, operations or network of institutions comprising the obliged entity, or to require the divestment of activities as referred to in Article 56 (2) (e) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640?

5b: withdrawal or suspension of an authorisation as referred to in Article 56 (2) (f) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640?

5c: require changes in governance structure as referred to in Article 56 (2) (g) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640?

Question 6: Which of these indicators and criteria could apply also to the non-financial sector? Which ones should not apply? Please explain your reasoning.

Question 7: Do you think that the indicators and criteria set out in the draft RTS should be more detailed as regards the naturals persons that are not themselves obliged entities and in particular as regards the senior management as defined in AMLR? If so, please provide your suggestions.

Question 8: Do you think that the draft RTS should be more granular and develop more specific rules on factors and on the calculation of the amount of the periodic penalty payments and if yes, which factors should be included into the EU legislation and why?

Question 9: Do you think that the draft RTS should create a more harmonised set of administrative rules for the imposition of periodic penalty payments, and if yes, which provisions of administrative rules would you prefer to be included into EU legislation compared to national legislation and why?

Name of the organization

Vereniging Nederlandse Organisaties Vrijwilligerswerk (NOV)