to the Consultation Paper “Proposed Regulatory Technical Standards in
the context of the EBA’s response to the European Commission’s Call for
advice on new AMLA mandates“

Position of the associations

• Prepaid Association of Germany e.V. (Prepaid Verband Deutschland e.V. – PVD)
• BrancheVereniging Cadeaukaarten Nederland (BVCNL)
• Electronic Money Association (EMA)
• European Payment Institutions Federation (EPIF)
• EuroCommerce
• Gift Card & Voucher Association (GCVA)
• Independent Retail Europe
• Payments Innovation Forum (PIF)
• Payments Innovation Forum (PIF)

to the Consultation Paper “Proposed Regulatory Technical Standards in the context of the EBA’s response to the European Commission’s Call for advice on new AMLA mandates“

The associations refer to the Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2025/04 of March 6, 2025, and have submitted to the EBA the comments of the above-mentioned associations to the Proposed Regulatory Technical Standards in the context of the EBA’s response to the European Commission’s Call for advice on new AMLA mandates („EBA Proposal“).

The associations jointly comment on the proposed risk factors relating to the issuance of electronic money.

• The signing associations answer question 10 to the RTS under Article 28(1) AMLR as follows: we do not agree with a number of the proposals as set out in Section 7 of the draft RTS. Our comments relate to Article 30 of the Draft RTS. For our rationale and evidence of the impact this Section 7 would have, please refer to Annex I. Further, the associations answer question 3 (comments on the proposed list of data points in Annex 1 of the Consultation Paper) related to the RTS under Art. 40 (2) of the AMLD. We do not respond to other questions.
• The rationale for our opinion is set out in Annex I.
• Evidence to support our views is set out in Annex I.
• Alternative regulatory choices are described in Annex I.

General Remarks

The signing associations appreciate the opportunity to respond to the EBA’s consultation on the proposed Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) and would like to raise several concerns and suggestions aimed at improving the practicality, legal clarity, and proportionality of the RTS.

In our view, the proposed RTS in their current form reach a level of complexity that is not necessary or proportionate to further specify the risk factors associated with features of electronic money instruments that should be taken into account by supervisors when determining the extent of the exemption under Article 19(7) AMLR.

In order for an obliged entity to be able to make use of the exemption from applying, in full or in part, the customer due diligence measures referred to in Article 20(1), points (a), (b) and (c), with respect to electronic money in accordance with Article 19(7) AMLR, Article 19(7) already defines risk-mitigating conditions to adequately demonstrate a low risk. The associations therefore suggest to also specify the risk-mitigating factors referred to in Article 19(7) AMLR, particularly the transaction monitoring to provide further examples of such measures.

We are missing a clear and unambiguous structure that takes into proper account how risk-mitigation in connection with such e-money products takes place in practice, as well as the existing legal frameworks already in place across Member States, including current restrictions and exemptions that address many of the objectives sought to achieve by the draft RTS.

Therefore, the RTS risk creating regulatory friction rather than streamlining AML/CFT compliance.

The RTS should also recognize the role of NCAs in performing case-by-case assessments in accordance with Article 19(7) AMLR. An overly prescriptive and rigid approach will not accommodate the diversity of business models and AML/CFT risk profiles within the EU and might undermine the risk-based principles.