FIUs in Europe are established in different ways and under different legal status. The term
“Financial Intelligence Unit” is applicable for all central Member States units collecting financial information from REs on the basis of the national AML/CFT legislation.
Here are the following types of FIUs within the European Union:
o Administrative FIUs 31 o Law Enforcement FIUs o Judicial FIUs
or
o Combinations of the above mentioned types. An example might be Spain which is a mix of an administrative FIU including LEA representatives, the FIU considers itself an administrative FIU according to the BC 2007. Another example might be the Netherlands, claiming to be a hybrid unit with mixed administrative and police personnel.
30 ARA financial investigation course: http://www.assetsrecovery.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CAD3C04B-A50D-4333-89F3-C2434CAEA8A9/0/FinancialInvestigation.pdf
31 A lot of these type of FIUs have created liaison functions for police investigators or are forming a hybrid type of unit with LEAs .
Page 46 of 101
Some of the FIU databases are directly (partly) accessible to LEA (United Kingdom 32, Ireland and the Slovak Republic 33). In order to maximize their financial intelligence systems, these FIUs have made their databases (partly) available for LEA (the police). For the administrative FIUs, this kind of system could improve the cooperation with LEAs, showing at the same time to the REs that their relevant STRs are being efficiently used in the AML process chain. The FIU is supposed to provide feedback to the REs according to national legislation. In most of the Member States, the national legal framework mentions that the FIU is obligated to provide feedback, but the legislation does not explain what this feedback has to consist of. Therefore in practice, there is a clear lack of communication and transfer of information between FIUs and REs. The interviews show that REs are complaining about the manner and contents of the feedback supplied by the FIU. Very often, many REs have to request for feedback on individual cases.
However, generally speaking most FIUs are very reluctant to give any kind of information to REs at all, regardless of the type of FIU.
The administrative and law enforcement FIU models are the most common in Europe.
The administrative FIU: (Greece, Malta, The Netherlands 34, The Czech Republic, Spain, Romania, Bulgaria, France, Belgium Sweden, Latvia and Slovenia) is generally characterized by its independence from other government agencies and REs often seem to have a better understanding with these type of FIUs than with the law enforcement type of FIUs. In the Netherlands the creation of an administrative type of FIU was one of the main conditions in 1994 for REs to cooperate with the authorities in the fight against money laundering.
Administrative FIUs often remain focused on the “Chinese walls” that, in their opinion, exists between their units and law enforcement agencies.
The Law enforcement FIU: (Slovakia, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Germany, Estonia, Portugal, Finland, Austria and The United Kingdom) is part of the law enforcement agency and often has difficulties dealing with its independence. The relation with the REs seems to be influenced by the fact that REs simply do not like to report their transactions directly to law enforcement agencies. Therefore a lot of Law enforcement FIUs have created separate databases and a sphere of independence.
32 In the UK the reported transactions are send directly on to the investigating units (FIU= Financial Investigation Units)
33 The SK FIU is part of the units investigating organized crime cases and investigates crimes together with the OC units.
34 The FIU The Netherlands is now part of the law enforcement organisation and therefore less independent than it was as an Administrative FIU (The MOT). In the BC 2007 the FIU still calls itself an Administrative FIU.
Page 47 of 101
The Judicial FIU: (Luxembourg, Cyprus and Denmark) is a type of FIU incorporated in the prosecution office of the Member State. A major role usually is being played by the Attorney General and the different prosecutors working in the FIU. Communication with other LEAs is therefore more practical as the prosecutor, in most Member States, is leading criminal investigations and has an almost natural relation with investigating units. Often the prosecutor is bound to complete secrecy around the contents of criminal cases. In these type of units informal feedback plays an important role.
b. Comparative analysis among FIUs:
Figure 12 shows the appreciation of the Member States FIUs about the feedback issue. The questionnaire for the FIUs contains questions about the level of feedback the FIU is providing as well as the feedback the FIU is receiving from LEAs. The overall result of the opinion of the FIU Directors and personnel is portrayed in the graph.
Page 48 of 101
Figure 13: Overall feedback perception compared to the perception of feedback by FIUs, REs and LEAs.
c. Analysis of present situation in the FIUs, the questionnaire:
Questionnaire for the FIUs
Does your FIU provide written or automatic acknowledgement of receipt of the reports
57% of the FIUs said they were providing either a written or automatic acknowledgement of the reception of the STRs by REs.
Acknowledgement of receiving only positively investigated STR
30% of the FIUs said they were providing only positively investigated or analysed STRs by REs.
Does your FIU give any notification of the results of analysis to the RE-‘s
15% of the FIUs said that information of the course of the analyses were providing to the REs.
Does the FIU provide feedback about the exact decision of the FIU?
26% of the FIUs said they were providing feedback about the exact decision of the FIU to the REs.
Does your FIU provide feedback on dissemination of STR-‘s to Law enforcement?
39% of the FIUs said they were providing feedback on dissemination of STR-s to Law enforcement Authorities
Page 49 of 101
Does your FIU organise training sessions on the topic of Money Laundering?
24% of the FIUs said they organise or take part in training sessions on the topic of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Does your FIU prepare annual reports?
85% of the FIUs said they prepare annual reports.
Do the authorities (FIU) organise meetings on ML activities?
74% of the FIUs said they organised meetings on money laundering activities and terrorist financing
Does your FIU have MOU’s with other countries?
83% of the FIUs said they have MOU’s with other countries.
Is reciprocity a precondition for the exchange of information for your FIU?
78% of the FIUs said reciprocity is a precondition for the exchange of information with other FIUs.
Is feedback a structural topic in your yearly reports?
65% of the FIUs said that feedback, in all kinds of forms, was a structural topic in their yearly reports
Is feedback somehow regulated in your AML legislation or procedures?
65% of the FIUs said that feedback was in some way regulated in their legislation or other procedures
Does your FIU receive any feedback from Supervisory authorities on their annual inspections?
63% of the FIUs said that they received feedback from Supervisory authorities after their annual inspections with REs.
Does your FIU exchange spontaneously transaction information with other FIUs?
Page 50 of 101
65% of the FIUs said they exchange spontaneously information with other FIUs.
Is training supplied by the FIU to Law enforcement Authorities?
54% of the FIUs said they supply, organise or participate in training sessions for Law enforcement authorities.
Does your FIU keep statistics of the number of disclosures?
87% of the FIUs said they keep statistics on the number of disclosures.
And the number of reports that lead to investigative actions?
78% of the FIUs said they also keep statistics on the number of reports that lead to investigative action.
Statistics on the number of reports closed without investigation?
78% of the FIUs said they keep statistics on the number of reports closed after the analysis of the FIU.
Are these figures fed back to the REs?
39% of the FIUs said they give feedback on the number of disclosures, the number of reports that lead to investigation as well as the number of reports closed after the analysis of the FIU.
Is information on current money laundering trends supplied to REs?
61% of the FIUs said they supplied information on current money laundering trends and typologies to REs.
Sanitised examples of actual money laundering cases or anonymous case descriptions are structural published / discussed with REs.
63% of the FIUs said they supplied, discussed or published sanitised ML cases, anonymous case descriptions in meetings with REs.
Is Feedback given individually to the REs (Case related)?
26% of the FIUs said they give individual (case related) feedback to REs.
Is feedback given by closure of the case to REs?
30% of the FIUs said they give feedback to the REs by closure of the case
Page 51 of 101
Is feedback given to REs on the final Judicial decision involving the STR-s
13% of the FIUs said they give feedback to REs on the final Judicial decision involving their reported transactions.
Does your FIU supply typologies from FATF, Egmont etc. To the REs?
61% of the FIUs said they provide typologies from the FATF, Egmont Group to the REs.
Does your FIU publish periodic newsletters on ML trends and information?
22% of the FIUs said they publish or supply periodic newsletters on money laundering activities and other ML information.
Does your FIU provide guidance notes in the approach towards money laundering?
43% of the FIUs said they provide guidance notes to reporting institutions on the money laundering approach.
Does the FIU provide video or electronic information on AML?
9% of the FIUs said they provide forms of video- or other electronic information on the AML approach
Does your FIU support a website with AML related information?
63% of the FIUs said the FIU supported a website with information on money laundering and other related information.
VII. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES