We are in full agreement with Articles 3 and 4 since we believe that they encapsulate all the necessary definitions required in understanding the process of setting up an AML/CFT central database. We thus, have no further comments to add from our end.
We believe that Article 4 and Annex 1 cover all the possible weaknesses and corresponding situations where a weakness may occur. Thus, we have no further comments to add from our end.
We are in agreement with all the criteria set out in Article 5, in determining whether weaknesses are material. Thus, we have no further comments to add from our end.
We are in full agreement with Articles 6, 7, 8 and Annex 3 as we believe that they incorporate all the key information, (that is, the general information, the information related to a material weakness and the information related to a measure taken in response to a material weakness) that will have to be provided by competent authorities to the EBA when complying with their reporting obligations. We thus, have no further comments to add from our end.
We are in full agreement with Articles 10 and 11 of the draft RTS as we believe that they set out the correct approach as to how the information received will be analysed by the EBA and made available to the competent authorities and how the database will ensure the cooperation with ESMA and EIOPA in order to avoid duplication of reporting, also specifying that the EBA will combine, where appropriate, the information from the database with information otherwise available to the EBA. We thus, have no further comments to add from our end.
We are in agreement with Articles 9 and 13(1) of the draft RTS and thus, have no further comments to add from our end. With respect to Article 13(2), rather than providing the EBA with a summary in English, we believe that it would be more sufficient for Authorities to submit the full translation of the supporting document in English to ensure that the EBA has a full understanding of the document submitted, thereby eliminating any misunderstandings or additional queries.
We are in agreement with Article 12 of the draft RTS, as we firmly believe that it is a step forward in ensuring that any duplication of information submitted to the EBA by competent authorities and prudential competent authorities, is avoided. We thus, have no further comments to add from our end.
We are in agreement with Article 13 of the draft RTS, specifically Article 13(4), as we believe that adopting the sequential approach whereby some authorities will have direct access whereas some others will have indirect access to the database, will truly achieve operational and cost efficiency both for the competent authorities as well as for the EBA. We thus, have no further comments to add from our end.
We are in agreement with Articles 14, 15 and Annex 2 of the draft RTS as we strongly believe that they ensure confidentiality and data protection, especially after considering the sensitive nature of the data that competent authorities will be submitting to the EBA and vice versa. We thus, have no further comments to add from our end.
We are in full agreement with the Technical Specifications specified in the Annex of this draft RTS as we are of the opinion that they encapsulate all the data points which are required to be submitted by the competent authorities, to ensure efficient and effective running of the EBA’s central AML/CFT database. We thus, have no further comments to add from our end.
