Centralization across the EU may sound good on paper, but Laura Aus, deputy head of the Estonian Financial Intelligence Unit, cautions against a one-size-fits-all approach. “Risks based on geography, products and customers are different everywhere,” Aus told POLITICO in an interview. “In Estonia, we maybe have more Russian nationals. Cyprus will probably have more [Russian-origin] funds in their country.”
Estonia — despite undergoing a similar and interlinked money laundering crisis in 2018 — has not centralized sanctions policy as much as Latvia, where the FIU shares responsibility with the foreign ministry and national customs: “It works because our information sharing works,” Aus said.
Other countries that take a diffuse approach feel the same way, said RUSI’s Kinga Redłowska, who heads the European branch of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies. She cited the Netherlands as an example: “They are making a case that you can have fairly effective enforcement without a strongly centralized model. I would point to coordination, rather than centralization.”
Whiter than white
“Money laundering and sanctions are interlinked areas; process and datawise as well,” said Swedbank compliance expert Genca. “When we are conducting sanctions risk assessment, we use the same principles as for anti-money laundering.”
ABLV is close to being wound up, while disgraced central bank chief Rimšēvičs has been jailed for six years for taking bribes — although he’s appealing that verdict. Under mostly U.S. pressure, Latvia has cleaned up its banking sector.
Washington, meanwhile, is keeping all of Europe on its toes, on March 26 citing a Cypriot company for facilitating sanctions evasion. On the same day, the U.S. and Cyprus announced they would work together more closely to crack down on financial crime.
