Source: AMLA final report draft
- Anti-money laundering
AMLR supplemental acts
- RTS on customer due diligence
Article 26 Risk factors
This is a draft act
This text has been parsed from the AMLA final report draft as published on 30 September 2026. While we run a suite of validations, the automated parsing can result in errors. Also, before it is finally adopted by the Commission, its wording, numbering and references may change, and entire articles might be removed or added.
Earlier drafts: AMLA consultation paper draft (9 February 2026)
Summary What does Article 26 of the RTS on customer due diligence say?
This article supports the exemption framework established under Article 19(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, which permits supervisors to grant exemptions from certain customer due diligence requirements for specific electronic money instruments.
Article 26 provides supervisors with a list of risk factors they must consider when determining the scope of any such exemption.
The factors collectively assess how constrained and controlled the payment instrument is in practice, looking at things like transaction limits, the nature of purchasable goods or services, the issuer's own safeguards, and the instrument's geographical and commercial reach.
Important points:
- Supervisors are required to weigh one or more listed risk factors before determining the extent of an exemption granted under Article 19(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624.
- The risk factors focus heavily on the controls applied by the issuer, including technological safeguards such as geofencing, IP tracking, and monitoring of merchants accepting the payment instrument.
- The degree to which the payment instrument is restricted in terms of transaction value, duration, distribution, and available goods or services is central to the supervisor's assessment.
Springlex's summary of the article is a reading aid, not a substitute for the legal text.
Where supervisors decide to allow for an exemption specified under Article 19(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, supervisors shall consider one or more of the following risk factors to determine the extent of that exemption:
the extent to which the payment instrument has low transaction limits or thresholds to limit transaction values;
the nature of the goods or services that can be acquired, including the level of risks associated with these goods and services;
the extent to which the transactions through the electronic money instrument are executed by an obliged entity that applies customer due diligence measures and record-keeping requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) 2024/1624;
the extent to which the payment instrument has a specific and limited duration in which it can be used;
the extent to which the payment instrument is available through direct channels, which may include the issuer or a network of service providers;
the extent to which the payment instrument has a limited geographical distribution;
the extent to which the issuer applies adequate safeguards, including geofencing, monitoring, IP tracking and other technological measures to detect and prevent unauthorised activity and to restrict access to the payment instrument from third counties;
the extent to which the issuer has measures in place to monitor the merchants that accept payments through the payment instrument in order to prevent and detect suspicious activities;
the measures implemented by the issuer to detect and prevent suspicious bulk purchasing of the payment instrument by or for the benefit of the same person.
Springlex and this text is meant purely as a documentation tool and has no legal effect. No liability is assumed for its content. The authentic version of this act is the one published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Definition
supervisor
Definition
electronic money