Your browser does not support JavaScript!

AML- package – stakes and challenges posed to the upcoming trialogue

Day 3 Morning

Friday 28 April

Room :



Marcus Pleyer
Deputy Director General, International Financial Markets, Digitization, Anti-Money Laundering & Counter Terrorist Financing - Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany
Public Authorities
Christopher P. Buttigieg
Chief Officer Supervision, Chief Executive Officer ad-interim - Malta Financial Services Authority
Paolo Costanzo
Manager, Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) - Banca d'Italia
Andreas Schirk
Head of Division, Prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing - Austrian Financial Market Authority
Tobias Thygesen
Director, FinTech, Payment Services and Governance Department - Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanstilsynet)
Ante Žigman
President - Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency (HANFA-CFSSA)
Industry Representatives
Bryant Gofstein
Deputy Chief Compliance Officer and Head of Financial Crimes Compliance - Western Union
Sylvie Matherat
Senior Advisor - Mazars
Markus Ronner
Group Chief Compliance and Governance Officer - UBS Group AG


The European Parliament has adopted its final report on the EU’s anti-money laundering package and the trialogue is scheduled for April. The forthcoming legislation follows a series of regulations over the last few years.

In this context, the session is firstly devoted to an update of legislator and industry positions on the forthcoming legislation, including on some important issues such as the need for an asset register, beneficial ownership rules and linking the AML regime to the sanctions regime.

In addition, the session will assess the key success factors for taking full advantage of the now extended EU framework on AML/CFT issues, including the rise of the AMLA. In particular, the panel should assess the feasibility of the extended set of provisions and arrangements worked out by EU policy makers.

Points of discussion

  1. The new AML-regime: Where do we stand and what lies ahead of us?
  2. What would be the reasonable cost for an adequate transparency?
  3. Is linking Anti-Money Laundering and Sanctions Regimes a good idea?