EACB experts acknowledge the importance of updating Recommendation 16 to reflect evolutions in payment business models and messaging standards, while still observing the ‘same activity, same risk, same rules’ principle.
However, the proposed changes give rise to specific concerns that we address in the attached position paper.
On the purchase of goods and services, we wish to underline that it would not be relevant from a risk-based perspective to apply the proposed changes to all card payments. It would be more efficient for the fight against money laundering / financing of terrorism and fraud to restrict the use of anonymous card as prepaid card or gift card.
We do not support the application of R.16 to cash withdrawals and purchase of cash or cash equivalent. Applying the R.16 to all cash withdrawals would not bring significant improvement in the transparency and security of these transactions. It should also be kept in mind that for cash withdrawals, only the card issuer would have the capabilities to control the accuracy of payment information and the lack of frauds (i.e. not the institution or undertaking operating the ATM).
Regarding the definition of payment chain, we are overall more in favour of Option 1 of the FATF consultation paper (payment chain initiated by the instruction from the customer). Option 2 (payment chain initiated by the funding) could inadvertently disrupt legitimate business models of new service providers (PSPs) and should therefore be avoided.
EACB experts also recommend a minimum transposition period of 36 months after incorporation into national law.
Please download the EACB response to see our full comments.