Towards the AMLR 2: Scope

6 October 2026 6 minutes

Broader scope of the AMLR

One of the most striking changes the AMLR brings is the extension of its scope. From 10 July 2027, a larger group of entities must take measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. In this blog we take a closer look at this development.

The Dutch landscape/Wwft

Traditionally, Wwft institutions can be divided into two categories: financial undertakings and non-financial undertakings, mostly professionals (such as lawyers and civil-law notaries). The AMLR widens the scope for both categories. We highlight a few examples.

Example 1: broader scope for financial services

One way in which the Dutch legislator limited the scope of the Wwft is by requiring that ‘financial undertakings’ carry out the relevant activities listed in Annex I to the Capital Requirements Directive as their main business (“in hoofdzaak” and “het bedrijf maken”). Examples are various banking services, such as offering credit (business/private), (financial) leasing or payment services.

The terms “mainly” and “carrying on a business” are not defined in the Wwft. A reasonable reading of, for example, the “mainly” criterion is that a party carries out one of the activities for more than 50% of its business activities. For this, one can look at turnover, profit, the number of FTEs engaged in those activities, and so on. In practice, a large group of undertakings could rely on this ‘exception’.

The terms ‘mainly’ and ‘carrying on a business’ do not appear in the AMLR, at least not for parties that provide one or more of the services listed in points 2 to 12, 14 and 15 of Annex I to the Capital Requirements Directive. The AMLR therefore contains no criterion that one or more of these services must be provided mainly, or that the party must carry on a business in them, before the party falls within the scope of the AMLR.

This means that once an institution offers credit, offers financial leasing products and/or provides payment services, it falls within the scope of the AMLR in principle. For market parties that carry on such services only to a limited extent, this will be an unpleasant surprise and may feel disproportionate. Member States may decide to exclude parties that provide such services only occasionally or on a very limited basis, if six prescribed conditions are met. We have developed a checklist for these providers of ‘financial services’, so that they can check whether they fall (or will fall) within the scope of the AMLR.

For now, it is unclear exactly how the Netherlands will implement this, although it is repeatedly stressed that the legislator favours a low-burden implementation. In any case, the threshold to qualify as an ‘AMLR institution’ is much lower than the current Dutch threshold. Market parties should pay attention to this.

Example 2: Holding companies

Another extension in the AMLR is that various types of holding companies are also brought within its scope. Financial holding companies, mixed financial holding companies, financial mixed holding companies, non-financial mixed holding companies, insurance holding companies and mixed insurance holding companies (in short: all holding companies that are not themselves a subsidiary and that have an AMLR institution, usually a financial institution, as a subsidiary) fall within the scope of the AMLR. This group of undertakings is brought within the scope of the legislation to ensure supervision of these entities.

For more complex structures, determining who the (EU) parent undertaking is will still be a considerable exercise, especially when the group itself has a parent undertaking established outside the EU. In practice, we already see this causing headaches for undertakings with a non-EU holding company.

Holding entities that fall under the AMLR will therefore have to pursue an active AMLR policy themselves, including customer due diligence and transaction monitoring. This is despite the fact that most holding entities carry out no real activities, other than holding other entities. As a result, this extension seems nonsensical, and we notice that in the sector this development raises quite a few eyebrows.

Example 3: Crowdfunding

The AMLR also affects the crowdfunding sector. For the time being, crowdfunding service providers do not fall within the scope of the Wwft, unless they hold a MiFID licence. The AMLR provides, however, that from 10 July 2027 crowdfunding service providers and crowdfunding intermediaries (parties that do not hold a licence as a crowdfunding service provider but do carry out comparable services) will also expressly fall under the framework. The AMLR therefore brings a (considerable) increase in administrative burden for the crowdfunding sector.

Example 4: Football

Professional football clubs and the football agents involved with them will also fall within the scope of the AMLR. Professional football clubs only have to apply the AMLR to the following transactions: (i) transactions with an investor; (ii) transactions with a sponsor; (iii) transactions with football agents or other intermediaries; and (iv) transactions for the purpose of the transfer of a football player.

Member States may choose to exempt certain smaller professional football clubs from the AMLR. At the time of writing, it is not yet clear whether the Dutch legislator will use this option.

On this specific point, the AMLR provides for a later entry into application: football clubs and football agents only have to apply the AMLR from 10 July 2029.

Uncertainty: Alternative investment funds

A change in scope that could well bring a limitation is the one for alternative investment funds (AIFs) and their managers (AIFMs). This is because the AMLR, unlike its predecessors in the various AMLD directives, refers to AIFMs within the meaning of the AIFMD, ‘that fall within the scope of Article 2 of the AIFMD’. In our first (academic) article on the AMLR, from a series of two, we already discussed the meaning of that last clause. In short, we conclude that the AMLR does not apply to AIFMs that use the so-called AIFMD registration regime (under Article 2:66a Wft). It is not evident whether the AIFs they manage are then also excluded, but we find that a logical consequence of the scope provision. Uncertainty on this point therefore remains for now, although the AFM seems to assume that AIFMs operating under the AIFMD registration regime do remain within the scope of the AMLR (see link).

AMLA, incidentally, has no power to issue Q&As on the level 1 text of the AMLR. AMLA will therefore probably not settle this point. The question is who has the mandate to give clarity on this. Because the AMLR is directly applicable, that should be the European Commission, and in principle not the Member States or local supervisors. It is very doubtful whether the clarifying words will come before 10 July 2027.

To-dos for market parties

A good understanding of the scope of the AMLR requires in-depth knowledge of and experience with the underlying sectoral supervisory frameworks to which the AMLR refers, such as CRD, PSD2, IDD, the AIFMD, MiFID II, MiCAR, etc. Finnius advises market parties very frequently on the scope of these supervisory frameworks and can say from experience that this is often a nuanced analysis.

If the AMLR applies where the Wwft does not yet, this obviously has a major impact on business operations. We therefore advise market parties to carry out this analysis in the short term.

For assistance in mapping the scope, you can contact Pim Smith and/or Tim de Wit.