Dutch Government introduces new anti-money laundering approach

The Dutch government published a new anti-money laundering approach on 14 May 2025 (see link). The new approach has two main goals, namely: (i) lowering the burden for bona fide entrepreneurs and citizens, and (ii) making it more difficult for criminals to misuse the financial system.

In the letter, the government makes a multitude of proposals to contribute to the goals mentioned above. The proposals can be divided into a number of clusters: (i) reduced burden on gatekeepers and their clients; (ii) improved data sharing; (iii) a well-functioning UBO register; (iv) targeted communication for greater understanding among clients; (v) payment accounts for bona fide clients. In terms of making it harder for criminals to misuse the financial system, the Dutch government is committed to intensify: (i) the risk-based approach, and (ii) its coordinating role.

Below we discuss five proposals that stand out to us given their impact on the sector:

1. Burden-free implementation of the European anti-money laundering package: The Dutch government pledges to implement the new European anti-money laundering package as burden-free as possible. In concrete terms, this means that wherever possible, the option that ensures the least burden for the sector will be chosen. The government also indicated what room it sees within the AML package to make certain simplifications (see link). For example, the Netherlands wants to limit the scope of the new anti-money laundering regulation as much as possible within the possibilities offered by the regulation. For example, the anti-money laundering regulation requires members to elaborate per type of financial institution whether they should fall within the scope of the regulation on the basis of prescribed indicators such as turnover and number of transactions. The Netherlands intends to formulate these criteria as narrowly as possible in order to limit the group of institutions brought within the scope of the anti-money laundering regulation. Also, the Netherlands does not intend to introduce a registration requirement for all (new) gatekeepers, but will use existing registers and data, such as those of the Chamber of Commerce (CoC).

2. Banks will be connected to the Personal Records Database (BPR): in the context of better data sharing, The Dutch government chooses to also give banks access to the BPR in the future so that they can extract (certain) data from the BPR that they need for customer due diligence. However, The Dutch government does not explain why other Wwft institutions are not also connected to the BPR. It is quite conceivable that other types of Wwft institutions also want to have access to the BPR.

3. The UBO register will be made more reliable: The CoC will do more itself to check – periodically – the accuracy of the UBO registrations in the UBO register. In addition, the Dutch government intends to give gatekeepers access to more information in the UBO Register to facilitate customer due diligence. Advice on this is being sought from the Data Protection Authority. As a result, it is not yet clear what (additional) data will be shared. As part of the investigation into sanctions, the UBO register is also being modified to make the investigation easier. For example, in the future it should be possible to indicate in the UBO register if a person or company falls under a sanctions regime applicable in the Netherlands.

4. Right to access a business payment account: The Dutch government has instructed the industry to propose self-regulation for the right to a business payment account. The Dutch government is also pushing for a European right to access a business payment account. Should neither initiative lead to the desired result, the Dutch government will come up with a national proposal to regulate the right to access a business payment account.

5. Reporting suspicious transactions: the government explains that under the new AML package, Wwft institutions will have to start reporting suspicious transactions to the FIU instead of unusual transactions. The definition of suspicious transactions is fixed in the anti-money laundering regulation, and the new European anti-money laundering authority is going to formulate indicators for suspicious transactions. Therefore, the Netherlands has no room under the new framework to prescribe national indicators. The Dutch government thereby confirms that the current Dutch reporting system is finite.

The Dutch government has also decided not to switch to a suspicious transaction reporting system at this time, mainly because another reporting obligation requires careful preparation. In short: until 10 July 2027, Dutch Wwft institutions are required to report unusual transactions to the FIU. In the past, this change in reporting system has also been presented as a burden reduction for the sector. The question is whether this will actually be the case in practice because under the new reporting system institutions will have to decide for themselves whether a conspicuous transaction is suspicious, whereas under the current reporting system the (unusual) transaction must be reported to the FIU if there is a suspicion of money laundering or the financing of terrorism. This higher reporting threshold means that institutions themselves will have to investigate the transaction more thoroughly.

This letter fits well with the trend of reduced regulatory burden that has been visible for some time (see, for example, our news flash on the Minister of Finance’s vision for the financial sector). All in all, the letter contains a number of valuable initiatives that will hopefully contribute to the reduction of the burden that is envisaged. A close examination of the proposals reveals that the letter does not contain many new proposals, but mainly refers to ongoing initiatives and the upcoming implementation of the European AML package. Another striking point is that banks in particular are being helped to further facilitate customer due diligence. Other types of Wwft institutions are not assisted in the same way yet, while the tone of the letter does go beyond the banking sector. The Dutch government also seems to pursue less regulatory burden for every Wwft institution, and thus the impact of the letter on the entire financial sector (including the supervisors) should not be underestimated. Hopefully, the legislator will also pay (more) attention to the burdens of other types of Wwft institutions in upcoming legislative processes.