(vii) Amendments to Guideline 8: Sectoral Guideline for correspondent relationships

In Guideline 8.6, point d) is replaced by the following:

‘d) The respondent conducts significant business with sectors that are associated with higher levels of ML/TF risk. For example, the respondent conducts:

• i. significant remittance business;
• ii. business on behalf of certain money remitters or exchange houses;
• iii. business on behalf of or with providers of crypto-assets services, other than CASPs regulated under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114³ , which are bound by an AML/CFT regulatory and supervisory regime that is less robust than the regime envisaged in Directive (EU) 2015/849 or are not subject to any AML/CFT obliga-tions;
• iv. significant business on behalf of CASPs, for which the business model is focused on providing products and services described in Guideline 21.3(d);
• v. business with non-residents; or
• vi. business in a currency other than that of the country in which it is based. ’

In Guideline 8.6, the following point is added:

3 Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937 16 ‘h) the IBAN account provided by a respondent CASP where it receives funds in an official currency⁴ from customers is in the name and ownership of a company, which is not the re-spondent CASP ’s company or in any way known to be linked to the respondent CASP .’

In Guideline 8.8, the following point is added:

‘d) The respondent is unable to verify with a sufficient level of certainty that its customers are not based in jurisdictions stated in point a) of Guideline 8.8, including through the verification of the internet protocol (IP) addresses of its customers or other means, in circumstances where it is required by the respondent’s policies and procedures.’

In Guideline 8.17, point a) and point c) are replaced by the following:

‘a) Gather sufficient information about a respondent institution to understand fully the na-ture of the respondent ’ s business, to determine the extent to which the respondent’s busi-ness exposes the correspondent to higher money-laundering risk. This should include taking steps to understand and risk assess the nature of the respondent’s customer base, if neces-sary, by asking the respondent about its customers and the type of activities that the re-spondent will transact through the correspondent account or, if relevant, the type of crypto-assets the respondent CASP will transact through the correspondent account. ’

‘ c) Assess the respondent institution ’ s AML/CFT controls. This implies that the correspond-ent should carry out a qualitative assessment of the respondent’s AML/CFT control frame-work, not just obtain a copy of the respondent’s AML policies and procedures. This assess-ment should include the transaction monitoring tools in place to ensure that they are ade-quate for the type of business carried out by the respondent. This assessment should be documented appropriately. In line with the risk-based approach, where the risk is especially high and in particular where the volume of correspondent banking transactions is substan-tive, the correspondent should consider on-site visits and/or sample testing to be satisfied that the respondent’s AML policies and procedures a re implemented effectively. ’