Source: OJ L, 2024/1640, 19.6.2024

Current language: EN

Article 22 Responses to requests for information


Summary What does Article 22 of the Sixth anti-money laundering (AML 6) directive say?

This article governs the relationship between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) and other competent authorities when it comes to information sharing on a domestic basis.

It establishes that FIUs must be capable of responding to reasoned requests for information from investigative and prosecutorial authorities within their Member State, while preserving the FIU's ultimate discretion over whether to actually disseminate that information.

The article also establishes a reciprocal feedback obligation, requiring competent authorities to report back to the FIU on how the information provided was used and what outcomes resulted.

Important points:

  • FIUs retain the final decision on whether to share information, and may refuse where doing so would harm ongoing investigations or analyses, or in exceptional circumstances where disclosure would be clearly disproportionate or irrelevant.
  • Where an FIU refuses a request, it must provide written reasons to the requesting authority.
  • Competent authorities are required to provide feedback to the FIU on the use and usefulness of information received, at least annually in aggregated form.

Springlex's summary of the article, a reading aid, not a substitute for the legal text.

    1. Member States shall ensure that FIUs are able to respond in a timely manner to reasoned requests for information justified by concerns relating to money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing by the competent authorities referred to in Article 2(1), points (44)(c) and (d), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 in their respective Member State where that information is already held by the FIU and is necessary on a case-by-case basis. The decision on conducting the dissemination of information shall remain with the FIU.

    2. Where there are objective grounds for assuming that the provision of such information would have a negative impact on ongoing investigations or analyses, or, in exceptional circumstances, where disclosure of the information would be clearly disproportionate to the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested, the FIU shall not be obliged to comply with the request for information.

    3. In such cases, the FIU shall provide the reasons in writing to the requesting authority.

    1. Competent authorities shall provide feedback to the FIU about the use made of, and the usefulness of, the information provided in accordance with this Article and Article 19(3), and about the outcome of actions taken and of investigations performed on the basis of that information. Such feedback shall be provided as soon as possible and in any case, in an aggregated form, at least on an annual basis, in such a way as to allow the FIU to improve its operational analysis function.

We're continuously improving our platform to serve you better.

Your feedback matters! Let us know how we can improve.

Found a bug?

Springflod is a Swedish boutique consultancy firm specialising in cyber security within the financial services sector.

We offer professional services concerning information security governance, risk and compliance.

Crafted with ❤️ by Springflod