AMLA Home-Host Supervisory Cooperation: Final RTS and Group Data Flows

AMLA home-host supervisory cooperation moved from consultation to final draft on 1 October 2026, when the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism published its final report on the regulatory technical standards (RTS) mandated by Article 46(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (AMLD). The draft delegated regulation fixes what the AML/CFT supervisor of a group entity in one Member State has to pass, unprompted, to the supervisor of another entity of the same group in another Member State, how the two run inquiries in each other’s territory, and when either may forward what it received without asking first. Article 10 of the draft sets an application date of 10 July 2027, the general application date of the AML Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (AMLR), but the text has legal force only once the European Commission adopts it and it appears in the Official Journal.

The addressees are supervisors. The final draft contains no return, template or filing deadline for banks, payment institutions or the non-financial obliged entities in a group. Group AML functions still have a stake, because the RTS lists categories of group information that supervisors pass to each other on their own initiative, including parent and local risk assessments, audit and supervisory findings, information on beneficial owners and senior management, and planned sanctions.

The October text also differs from the May consultation draft in places that a summary of the earlier version will miss. The request templates have gone, oral requests now carry a 72-hour resubmission rule, and the operative clause on onward disclosure gained a “duly justified” condition.

Related reading: AMLA Home-Host Cooperation RTS: 28 May Hearing Guide for Cross-Border AML Teams

Key dates for the AMLA home-host supervisory cooperation RTS

• 19 June 2024: Directive (EU) 2024/1640 is published in the Official Journal. Its Article 46(4) gives AMLA the mandate for these standards.
• 11 May 2026: AMLA announces the consultation on the draft RTS and a public hearing.
• 28 May 2026: public hearing. AMLA’s event page described the hearing as the designated channel for feedback and said no written contributions could be accepted. The final report puts attendance at approximately 150 participants.
• 10 July 2026: the date by which Article 46(4) AMLD required AMLA to develop the draft RTS and submit it to the Commission.
• 1 October 2026: AMLA publishes the final report and press release.
• Commission stage: under Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 (AMLAR), the Commission decides whether to adopt a draft RTS within three months of receiving it. The European Parliament and the Council then have three months to object, extendable by a further three at their initiative (Article 51 AMLAR).
• Entry into force: the twentieth day after publication in the Official Journal (draft Article 10).
• 10 July 2027: application date in draft Article 10. The AMLR applies from the same day under its Article 90, except for the obliged entities in Article 3, points (3)(n) and (o) AMLR, for which it applies from 10 July 2029.

The final report gives no expected adoption date. Its next-steps paragraph says only that the draft will be submitted to the Commission for adoption before OJ publication. If the Commission wants changes, Article 49(1) AMLAR sends the text back to AMLA, which then has six weeks to amend it, so the three-month window is a decision deadline and the published wording can still move. Article 49(1) also requires the Commission to inform the Parliament and the Council in due time where adoption cannot take place within the three-month period.

Which supervisors the final RTS binds, and which groups sit outside it

Article 1 of the draft defines the scope by reference to the supervisors: those of the home and host Member States that supervise credit institutions, financial institutions or non-financial obliged entities forming part of a group and operating in different Member States. Three modalities follow from it: information exchange (without prejudice to the rules for AML/CFT supervisory colleges), conducting inquiries on behalf of a requesting supervisor or helping it carry out its own, and other cooperation such as agreed coordinated supervisory approaches that may lead to coordinated or joint supervisory activities.

The rule set is horizontal. Article 46(6)(a) AMLD extends Article 46 to groups in the non-financial sector, and AMLA’s impact assessment records that it chose a single set of provisions for financial and non-financial supervisors alike (its Option A) over a common core with sector-specific add-ons. Proportionality is built into recital 4, which tells supervisors to apply the regulation in a proportionate manner, taking into account the risk profile of the supervised obliged entities and groups.

“Group” carries the AMLR meaning: a parent undertaking, its subsidiaries, and undertakings linked by a relationship within the meaning of Article 22 of the Accounting Directive (2013/34/EU). For groups whose head office is outside the Union, Article 2(1), point (42)(b) AMLR describes the EU undertaking that acts as parent where at least two subsidiaries are obliged entities established in the Union. Recital 3 of the draft says that, in those cases, the parent undertaking and therefore the home supervisor are identified using the criteria in the delegated regulation that will be based on AMLA’s separate RTS under Article 16(4) AMLR.

Group supervision is the core case under Article 46, but group membership is not the only case to which Article 46 applies. Article 46(6)(b) also extends Article 46 to obliged entities operating under the freedom to provide services without any infrastructure in another Member State where supervision of those activities is carried out by the host supervisor under Article 37(1), second subparagraph. Article 47 separately governs cross-border cooperation for obliged entities that are not part of a group and expressly covers establishments and other types of infrastructure, as well as specified cases of cross-border activity without infrastructure. The applicable cooperation framework therefore depends on the entity’s group status, form of cross-border activity and allocation of supervisory responsibility under the Directive. Article 1 of the draft RTS refers to supervisors of obliged entities that form part of a group and operate in different Member States, and it does not name the Article 46(6)(b) case.

A second category is in scope only by invitation. Where non-financial supervisors oversee obliged entities in structures that share common ownership, management or compliance control, including networks or partnerships, Article 46(6) AMLD requires those supervisors to cooperate and exchange information. The final report says they are not formally required to apply the RTS procedures and encourages them to do so voluntarily.

Colleges or no college: where the RTS carries most of the weight

Article 46(3) AMLD frames the information-exchange duty between financial supervisors as applying “except in cases where AML/CFT supervisory colleges are set up in accordance with Article 49”. Article 49(1) makes a college mandatory in two situations: a credit or financial institution, including groups thereof, with establishments in at least two Member States other than its head-office state, or a third-country credit or financial institution with establishments in at least three Member States. Article 49(3) switches the college rules off when AMLA acts as supervisor. For the non-financial sector, the impact assessment notes that the Directive encourages colleges without mandating them.

Where a college exists, the final report says the RTS is complemented by the AML/CFT colleges guidelines and, once adopted, the separate RTS under Articles 49(14) and 50(13) AMLD. The home-host RTS applies to the extent that a process is not already governed by that college-specific framework.

The groups for which the RTS does the most work are the ones without a college. AMLA’s executive summary says the absence of efficient arrangements for cross-border cooperation and information exchange can create persistent challenges for group-level supervision, “particularly in situations where no AML/CFT supervisory college is in place”, and its impact assessment says that in such cases cooperation has often relied on bilateral and ad hoc agreements. The same assessment notes that the ESAs’ 2019 guidelines on AML/CFT colleges do not cover all types of home-host relationships. A group with its parent in one Member State and an establishment in only one other Member State does not meet the Article 49(1)(a) threshold, so for that group the RTS is the main cooperation rulebook.

What home and host supervisors must share without a request

Articles 5 and 6 mirror each other. Each supervisor must provide, on its own initiative, information that could significantly influence the assessment of the inherent or residual risk exposure of an obliged entity in the other supervisor’s Member State. The home supervisor sends to the host. The host supervisor sends to the home supervisor or to the supervisor of another host Member State.

Timing is set for one item only. Information on intended sanctions and measures must be provided before the obliged entity concerned is notified of the initiation of a procedure to impose pecuniary sanctions or apply administrative measures. A host supervisor can therefore learn of a planned measure against another entity of the same group before that entity hears of it.

The lists are open (“including”), and the Directive’s own Article 46(3) list is wider than the three points the RTS repeats. It also names the group’s legal, governance and organisational structure, the policies, procedures and controls in place within the group, and customer due diligence information, including customer files and records of transactions.

The risk-assessment row has the most practical reach. A group’s parent-level assessment and a subsidiary’s own business-wide risk assessment under Article 10 AMLR can both reach the home and the host supervisor. Where the two documents rate the same entity’s exposure differently, both supervisors can see the gap without either firm sending anything new. The qualifier “to the extent obtained” matters here: the RTS covers the firm assessments a supervisor holds and does not oblige it to collect more for this purpose.

Requests, deadlines and the 72-hour rule

Article 2 requires supervisors to exchange information over protected channels with an appropriate level of confidentiality, security, access controls and access logs, and to use collaborative and integrated solutions for structured workflows, secure data exchange and record keeping where those are available. Supervisors can find each other through the contact points communicated to AMLA under Article 62(2) AMLD. Recital 6 allows temporary means such as functional mailboxes during a transitional period where integrated solutions or an IT specification are not yet in place.

A request for cooperation under Article 3(1) must carry six items:

1. identification of the requesting and requested supervisors;
2. the obliged entity or entities concerned, specifying where possible their type by reference to Article 3 AMLR;
3. the reason, object and justification of the request;
4. a description of the information requested or the planned inquiry, and its intended use;
5. data confidentiality requirements and the foreseen secure channels;
6. the preferred deadlines for a response or the requested action.

In duly justified exceptional circumstances a request may be made by other means, including orally, provided confidentiality and security are maintained. Within 72 hours it has to be resubmitted through the Article 2 channels with the full Article 3(1) content. Requests and follow-up exchanges may use any Union language the supervisors agree on.

The requested supervisor acknowledges receipt without undue delay, makes every effort to respond within the deadlines indicated and, where it cannot, explains why without undue delay and, where appropriate, proposes a different deadline. Under Article 4(4), it then provides what it has within that deadline. Both sides keep a record of all cooperation actions, including requests, decisions taken and information exchanged (Article 3(7)).

The 72 hours are the only hard number in the request mechanics, and they govern re-papering an oral request. Response timing is set case by case: the requesting supervisor names a preferred deadline, and the requested supervisor either meets it or proposes another.

Before asking at all, Article 4(1) requires the supervisor to check whether the information is already available and accessible, including, where relevant, in the central beneficial ownership registers under Article 10 AMLD, in the central bank account registers or data retrieval systems under Article 16 AMLD, and in other registers held by the European Supervisory Authorities or the European Central Bank. Supervisors may also consider requesting access to the central AML/CFT database under Article 11 AMLAR. Information covered by legal privilege within the meaning of Article 70(2) AMLR is not exchanged (Article 4(3)), and exchanged information is updated at agreed intervals on request (Article 4(5)).

Article 4(2) is where a cross-border request becomes a local one. A supervisor that does not possess the requested information assesses whether it can obtain it with its own powers, including by asking the obliged entity directly or by requesting it from another authority that can exchange it. Nothing in the RTS requires the supervisor to tell the entity that the request serves another supervisor.

Cross-border inquiries and coordinated supervisory approaches

The final report uses “inquiry” broadly, covering on-site inspections and other types of supervisory engagement. Recital 8 says an inquiry can be a single request or several, and gives two families of examples: requests by home supervisors to establish how a subsidiary applies group-wide policies, procedures and controls, together with requests by supervisors to check the compliance of establishments in their Member State with the AMLR and the Transfer of Funds Regulation (EU) 2023/1113; and requests linked to requests from other competent bodies in the supervisor’s Member State under the conditions of Article 68(3) AMLD.

Article 7 sets out the sequence for inquiries in the context of group supervision:

1. Before conducting an inquiry, the supervisors agree specific arrangements in accordance with Union law and, where applicable, their national legal order, covering at least the means of contact and the modalities for timely exchange of the information obtained.
2. The requesting supervisor notifies the requested supervisor sufficiently in advance of any planned inquiry concerning an establishment that is part of a group, including any intention to ask the requested supervisor to carry it out on its behalf. The notification carries the Article 3(1) content.
3. The requested supervisor says, without undue delay, whether it will carry out the inquiry within its own powers or support the requesting supervisor in carrying it out.
4. If it acts on the requesting supervisor’s behalf, it communicates the resources assigned, the points of contact and the expected completion deadline.
5. After completion, the two hold an exchange of views on findings and observations. Where findings could seriously affect other parts of the group, they coordinate subsequent supervisory action where necessary.
6. Any refusal or limitation must be duly justified, documented and communicated to the requesting supervisor.

The operational detail with the most direct effect on a host-country entity is Article 7(5). Where the requested supervisor cannot carry out the inquiry itself, or where the requesting supervisor is to carry it out directly with the requested supervisor’s prior consent, the requested supervisor uses its powers to take reasonable steps to facilitate the requesting supervisor’s access to the relevant establishment and to information sources in its jurisdiction, to help it obtain authorisations or permissions required under the applicable law, and to support it with language, procedural or operational barriers. A subsidiary can therefore receive the home supervisor’s own inspection team, with the local supervisor clearing the path.

Coordination is conditional. Article 8(1) requires home and host supervisors to coordinate their supervisory approaches “where necessary”, and recital 9 says they “may agree” on a coordinated approach, which may include coordinated or joint inspections. Once an approach is agreed, Article 8(2) requires a record of the activities and supervisory actions, the timeline, the information-exchange modalities, and the options for coordinated follow-up, including, where applicable, the adoption and imposition of supervisory measures. Before a coordinated supervisory action, Article 8(3) has the supervisors assess the nature and level of the ML/TF risk, the specific risks concerned, the relevant regulatory provisions and differences between frameworks, and the resources available.

Disputes go to AMLA through two routes. Article 8(4) lets one supervisor refer the other’s failure to act in line with an agreed approach. Article 46(5) AMLD already allows financial supervisors to refer cases where information under Article 46(3) was not communicated, where a request was rejected or not acted upon within a reasonable time, or where there is an objectively based disagreement on breaches and on the sanctions or measures to remedy them. AMLA may then act under Article 33 AMLAR and, when it does, gives its opinion within one month. For non-financial supervisors, Article 46(6) AMLD points to AMLA’s powers under Article 38 AMLAR instead.

Onward disclosure: notification replaces consent inside the EU system

Article 9 is what AMLA’s press release calls the “simplified disclosure framework”. Under its operative text, information exchanged under Article 46 AMLD “shall, where duly justified for the exercise of supervisory tasks, be disclosed” to the supervisors within the scope of Article 1, to AMLA when acting as a supervisor, or to the public authorities referred to in Article 52 AMLD, which oversee self-regulatory bodies, without the prior consent of the supervisor it came from. Recital 10 and the press release describe the same rule as a permission (“may”, “allows”). The originating supervisor is notified, to the extent possible before disclosure or, at the latest, at the time of disclosure, of the information shared, the recipient and the rationale.

The impact assessment explains the choice. A consent requirement for every disclosure (Option A) would have avoided adaptation costs but, in AMLA’s assessment, imposed excessive burden on supervisors and potentially impaired timely information flows; notification within the EU supervisory system (Option B) was chosen instead. Recital 10 adds that disclosure without prior consent is also possible in other cases where Union law authorises or requires it, again with notification.

Notification-based disclosure still has three limits written into the operative text. The disclosure has to be duly justified for supervisory tasks. The originating supervisor has to be told what went where and why. And information that originates from a third-country counterparty stays outside the regime: the final report ties this to the Article 51 AMLD framework for cooperation agreements and says such information will not be disclosed without the explicit consent of the supervisor that shared it.

Article 9 governs what supervisors do with information. What group entities share among themselves sits in Article 16 AMLR and AMLA’s separate group-wide RTS under Articles 16(4) and 17(3) AMLR, published as a final draft the same day and covered in our note on AMLA’s final RTS on CDD data, linked transactions and group-wide rules. A group that relies on its intra-group information-sharing policy to manage confidentiality does not control the supervisory channel described here.

What changed between the May consultation and the October final draft

AMLA’s feedback section summarises the themes raised at the hearing and AMLA’s responses. It does not list the textual edits. Setting the May consultation paper beside the October final report shows the following changes, on a comparison of the two documents:

The template removal is the edit most likely to be misread. It removes a form. The minimum content stayed, and grew by one item.

On the hearing itself, the final report records questions on conflicting interpretations across Member States, mixed groups with offshore or non-financial entities, the definition of “group”, lead-supervisor designation, language barriers and duplicative requests to smaller obliged entities. AMLA’s answers point outside this RTS for several of them: a supervisory methodology it is developing with Member States, lead-supervisor designation within the college framework, Memoranda of Understanding it is working on with non-EU supervisors and prudential supervisors, and possible tools for a more integrated common framework. On language, AMLA says the RTS does not prescribe the language of supervisory communications.

Where AMLA itself fits in the home-host split

Article 46(1) AMLD requires financial supervisors to cooperate with AMLA when it acts as a supervisor, and Article 46(2) assigns the home supervisor the group-wide policies and the host supervisor the local establishments “except when AMLA acts as a supervisor”. In its operative articles, the draft RTS refers to AMLA as the body holding the contact-point list (Article 2(2)), as a possible recipient of other information (Articles 5(2) and 6(2)), as the referral body when a coordinated approach is not followed (Article 8(4)), and as “the Authority when acting as a supervisor” among the permitted recipients in Article 9. It sets out no separate procedure for groups AMLA supervises directly.

That boundary will become concrete for a small population. AMLA’s March 2026 announcement of its data collection exercise says the selection of up to 40 entities for direct supervision takes place in 2027, with direct supervision starting in 2028; our explainer on the AMLA risk assessment data collection and the 2027 selection exercise covers that process.

The RTS is one instrument in a wider set. The final report places it alongside the AML/CFT colleges guidelines, the college RTS under Articles 49(14) and 50(13) AMLD, and the cooperation guidelines under Articles 64(6) and 69 AMLD. Its impact assessment also names Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1722, the PSD2 home-host cooperation RTS for payment and e-money institutions providing cross-border payment services, among the instruments with which it aims to ensure continuity and coherence where warranted. For the full map of where these pieces sit in the package, see our guide to the EU AML package and the countdown to 10 July 2027.

Article 45 AMLD sits alongside the RTS, which does not refer to it. Article 45 requires the home supervisor to inform the host within three months of receiving an obliged entity’s Article 8(1) AMLR notification of intended activities, to pass on subsequent changes within one month, to share information on activities effectively carried out in the host Member State at least annually, and to inform the host immediately when notified that activities have commenced.

Preparing a cross-border group file before July 2027

What follows is a working list for a group AML function that wants to map these supervisory flows before application. The RTS itself places obligations on supervisors only.

1. Supervisor map. For each EU entity, record the home or host supervisor, whether the group meets an Article 49(1) college threshold, and whether the entity is part of a group or falls within Article 46(6)(b), and which cross-border activities instead fall within Article 47 AMLD.
2. Document inventory. List which supervisor already holds each document in the Article 5 and 6 categories: the parent-level and local business-wide risk assessments under Article 10 AMLR, internal and external audit reports, supervisory findings and remediation plans, and fit-and-proper material on beneficial owners and senior management.
3. Consistency check. Where a parent-level and a local risk assessment describe the same entity, reconcile the ratings or document why they differ.
4. Register alignment. Compare the ownership information in the central beneficial ownership registers with information already provided to supervisors, given the draft Article 4 requirement to check information that is already available and accessible before submitting a request for information.
5. Request log. A group that records supervisory requests centrally can see when the same question arrives in two Member States.

The inquiry rules add one logistical point. Article 3(4) lets supervisors agree any Union language between themselves, and the RTS says nothing about the language an inspection team uses with the firm it visits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Our payment institution serves another Member State only through agents. Does the RTS apply to its supervisors?

Article 1 of the draft RTS covers supervisors of obliged entities that form part of a group and operate in different Member States, and the final report says that situations in which obliged entities operate in another Member State exclusively through branches, agents, distributors or other forms of infrastructure are governed by Article 47 AMLD and fall outside the draft RTS. Article 47 AMLD, however, governs cross-border cooperation for obliged entities that are not part of a group, while Article 46 governs group supervision and, under Article 46(6)(b), also extends to specified cases where an obliged entity operates under the freedom to provide services without infrastructure and host-state supervision applies under Article 37(1), second subparagraph. Whether the RTS reaches the supervisors of a payment institution with only agents in the host Member State therefore turns on both its group status and that form of presence. For payment service providers, e-money issuers and crypto-asset service providers operating through agents, distributors or other infrastructure, Article 41 AMLD separately lets the host Member State require a central contact point, a track covered in our article on the AMLA central contact point survey for PSPs and EMIs.

Can a host supervisor pass our parent company’s risk assessment to its national FIU?

Article 9’s operative words cover supervisors within Article 1, AMLA acting as a supervisor and the Article 52 AMLD authorities. For FIUs, recital 10 points to a separate route: disclosure without prior consent is also possible where Union law authorises or requires it, and the recital names FIUs, the competent authorities in Article 2(1), point (44)(c) and (d) AMLR, and targeted financial sanctions authorities under Article 66 AMLD. An FIU disclosure therefore needs that separate Union-law basis, with the originating supervisor notified of the information and the rationale.

Information about our non-EU subsidiary came from that country’s supervisor. Can EU supervisors forward it to each other?

Only with consent. Article 9 excludes information originating from a third-country counterparty from the no-consent rule, and the final report says such information will not be disclosed without the explicit consent of the supervisor that shared it.

Will our entities be told when their home and host supervisors exchange information about them?

The RTS is silent on informing the obliged entity: the Article 9 notification goes to the originating supervisor, and the Article 3(7) record is kept by the supervisors. Whether a national procedure gives the entity any visibility is a matter for national law, which the RTS does not address.

Our home and host supervisors disagree on whether a finding justifies a sanction. What happens?

Either can refer the disagreement to AMLA under Article 46(5)(c) AMLD where it rests on objective reasons about the breaches and the sanctions or measures. AMLA may act under Article 33 AMLAR and, when it does, gives its opinion within one month; for non-financial supervisors the reference is Article 38 AMLAR.

Does legal privilege protect documents we gave our supervisor?

Only material that is privileged within the meaning of Article 70(2) AMLR, which Article 4(3) excludes from exchange. The final report states the general position that information exchanged under the RTS is supervisory in nature and does not, as a rule, fall within legal professional privilege, and recital 7 adds that a supervisor holding privileged information is not required to share it in the context of group supervision.

Our group also passports payment services under PSD2. Does the PSD2 home-host RTS still apply?

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1722 sets the cooperation framework between home and host competent authorities for payment and e-money institutions providing cross-border payment services, and AMLA’s impact assessment lists it among the instruments the new RTS aims to remain coherent with. The AMLA draft has no repeal clause touching it, and the two instruments serve different supervisory mandates.

Related Articles

• AMLA Home-Host Hearing: What Cross-Border AML Teams Should Do After 28 May: the open points raised around the 28 May 2026 hearing on the consultation draft.
• AMLA Final RTS: CDD Data, Linked Transactions and Group-Wide Rules: the three private-sector final draft RTS AMLA published on 1 October 2026, including intra-group information sharing.
• The EU AML Package: The Countdown to 10 July 2027: how the AMLR, AMLD and AMLA Regulation fit together ahead of application.
• AMLA Risk Assessment Data Collection: The 2027 Selection Exercise: the data exercise behind the selection of entities for direct AMLA supervision.
• AMLA Central Contact Point Survey: The 15 September Deadline for PSPs: the central contact point track for providers operating through agents and distributors.

Key Takeaways

• Planning basis: the October final draft. Legal basis: only the version the Commission adopts and publishes in the Official Journal.
• A request from the local supervisor can serve a foreign counterpart: Article 4(2) lets it ask the entity directly, and the RTS imposes no duty to say so.
• Groups below the Article 49(1) college thresholds get the RTS as their main cooperation rulebook; groups with a college get it as a gap-filler.
• Parent and local risk assessments, audit and supervisory findings, and fit-and-proper information are own-initiative categories, so each supervisor’s copy can reach the others.
• Planned pecuniary sanctions and administrative measures travel to counterpart supervisors before the entity is notified.
• Internal summaries or procedures written from the May consultation draft need checking against the final text, starting with templates, oral requests, onward disclosure and the application date.
• No new return, template or filing deadline for obliged entities comes with this RTS.

Sources and References

• AMLA, Press Release: AMLA finalises standards on Home-Host Supervisory Cooperation (1 October 2026): amla.europa.eu
• AMLA, Final Report: Draft Regulatory Technical Standards on the respective duties of the home and host supervisors, and the modalities of cooperation between them under Article 46(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (PDF): amla.europa.eu
• AMLA, Consultation Paper: Draft Regulatory Technical Standards under Article 46(4) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (PDF): amla.europa.eu
• AMLA, AMLA holds a public hearing to consult on the draft RTS for Home-Host Supervisory Cooperation (11 May 2026): amla.europa.eu
• AMLA, Press Release: AMLA finalises key standards for the private sector (1 October 2026): amla.europa.eu
• AMLA, Public hearing on the draft RTS on home-host supervisory cooperation, 28 May 2026 (event page): amla.europa.eu
• Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (AMLD), including Articles 41, 45, 46, 47, 49 and 52: EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (AMLR), including Article 2(1), points (42) and (44), Article 16 and Article 90: EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2024/1620 establishing AMLA (AMLAR), including Articles 49 and 51: EUR-Lex
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 on information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets: EUR-Lex
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1722 of 18 June 2021 (PSD2 home-host cooperation RTS): EUR-Lex
• AMLA, Factsheet on group-wide minimum requirements (AMLR definition of group): amla.europa.eu
• AMLA, AMLA launches data collection exercise to test risk assessment models (16 March 2026): amla.europa.eu

Next checkpoint: the Commission decision on the AMLA home-host RTS

The Commission’s decision is the next date that matters. Under Article 49(1) AMLAR it is due within three months of the Commission receiving AMLA’s draft, followed by the Parliament and Council objection period under Article 51. Before then, the artifact worth producing is the supervisor map for each EU entity in the group, marking home or host role and college status, together with the inventory of documents each supervisor already holds. If the Commission adopts the text as drafted, neither the Parliament nor the Council objects and the text is published in the Official Journal, draft Article 10 makes these cooperation rules apply from 10 July 2027.

Disclaimer: The information on RegReportingDesk.com is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or compliance advice. Always consult your compliance officer, legal counsel, or the relevant supervisory authority for guidance specific to your institution.