EU ¦ Article 6b of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014: Information Duties, Legal Privilege and Risks for Financial Crime Compliance

How Article 6b of Regulation 833/2014 Shapes Sanctions Reporting and Compliance

Article 6b of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 imposes concrete information and cooperation duties on natural and legal persons, while explicitly safeguarding the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. For financial crime and sanctions professionals, this provision is central: it shapes how information must flow to authorities, where the boundaries of legal privilege lie, and how risks around non‑compliance should be managed. Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 is one of the key sanctions instruments of the European Union in response to Russia’s actions destabilising Ukraine. Article 6b, in particular, operationalises the duty to “speak up” to authorities while trying not to compromise defence rights or privileged advice. Understanding its structure is crucial for banks, other obliged entities, corporates, and professional advisers.

The Core Obligations Under Article 6b(1)

Article 6b(1) creates a dual obligation for natural and legal persons, entities, and bodies in the EU:

They must, first, supply information. Second, they must cooperate with the competent authority.

These obligations are triggered when a person or entity acquires information that would facilitate the implementation of Regulation 833/2014. The scope is broad: it captures any information capable of helping authorities ensure, monitor, or enforce compliance with the Regulation.

The provision reads, in essence, as follows:

• Within two weeks of acquiring relevant information, the person or entity must supply it to the competent authority of the Member State where they are resident or located.
• In addition, they must cooperate with the competent authority in any verification of such information.

For financial institutions and other high‑risk businesses, this means that sanctions‑relevant findings cannot simply stay in internal files. If the information can facilitate implementation of the Regulation, there is an EU‑level obligation to report it within a defined time frame. Importantly, this is independent of domestic suspicious transaction reporting obligations under AML laws, though in practice the facts often overlap.

The time limit is tight: two weeks from acquiring the information. The starting point is when the relevant information is known, not when an internal analysis is fully finalised. Firms therefore need clear internal escalation and assessment processes to identify when information has crossed the threshold of being “relevant” for implementation.

The duty to cooperate in verification reinforces this: once information has been filed, the competent authority may follow up with questions, document requests, or further enquiries. Entities cannot simply upload information and then go silent; active cooperation is part of the legal obligation.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"Article 6b of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 creates a clear duty for organisations and individuals to proactively support the EU sanctions regime while safeguarding legal professional privilege. For financial crime specialists, this provision defines when information must be reported, how to work with competent authorities, and how to structure internal investigations without undermining confidential legal advice.

At the same time, Article 6b highlights that sanctions compliance is not just a technical screening issue but a strategic legal and governance topic. Firms that set up robust escalation, documentation, and reporting processes will be better positioned both to avoid breaches and to defend themselves if enforcement scrutiny arises."

The Safeguard: Legal Professional Privilege Under Article 6b(1) and (1a)

Article 6b is expressly framed as being consistent with the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is a key safeguard for legal professional privilege.

Article 6b(1a) goes even further. It clarifies that the confidentiality of lawyer‑client communications also covers legal advice provided by other certified professionals who are authorised under national law to represent their clients in judicial proceedings, provided that the advice is given in connection with pending or prospective judicial proceedings.

This has several important consequences:

First, legal advice by lawyers remains protected, especially where it is linked to litigation or prospective litigation. This means that, in principle, the obligation to provide information should not be interpreted in a way that forces disclosure of privileged legal advice.

Second, other professionals (for example, certain accountants or tax advisers in some Member States) may also benefit from this extended confidentiality when they are authorised to represent clients in court and provide advice connected to judicial proceedings. Whether a particular professional is covered depends on national law, so this requires country‑specific analysis.

Third, the reference to “pending or prospective judicial proceedings” means that not every piece of advice by such professionals is automatically covered. There needs to be a genuine link to litigation or anticipated litigation. Purely transactional or compliance advice, delivered outside any litigation context, may not enjoy the same enhanced protection, even if it is given by a professional who can act in court.

For financial crime compliance teams, this creates a careful boundary:

Internal sanctions investigations may generate privileged advice from external counsel that is protected.

Factual information uncovered by the institution itself, or by non‑privileged advisers, may still need to be reported under Article 6b(1).

Firms should avoid blending privileged legal assessments with factual reports that must be submitted to authorities. Separating legal analysis from factual summaries can help protect privilege while staying compliant.

Information Flow: From Entities to Member States to the Commission

Article 6b does not stop at the obligation of persons and entities. It also imposes duties on Member States and shapes the information flow within the EU.

Under Article 6b(2), the Member State that receives relevant information must transmit it to the European Commission within one month of receiving it. This means that the information supplied by banks, corporates, and other entities does not remain purely national; it feeds into an EU‑wide sanctions enforcement architecture.

An important nuance is the possibility of anonymisation. The Member State may transmit information to the Commission in anonymised form if an investigating or judicial authority has declared it to be confidential in the context of pending criminal investigations or criminal judicial proceedings.

Two elements stand out here:

1. The anonymisation is conditional on a confidentiality declaration by an investigating or judicial authority.
2. The reason is the protection of ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings.

From a financial crime risk perspective, this shows that Article 6b is designed to serve both supervisory and criminal enforcement objectives. Information can support administrative or supervisory action, but it may also be part of criminal case files. The anonymisation mechanism tries to balance EU‑level oversight with the need to shield sensitive case details during ongoing proceedings.

Under Article 6b(3), any additional information received directly by the Commission must be made available to the Member States. This closes the loop: information flows up from entities to Member States, then to the Commission, and back down to Member States when the Commission receives further data. In practice, this encourages a coordinated enforcement approach and allows for cross‑border intelligence sharing in sanctions cases.

Purpose Limitation: Article 6b(4) and Data Protection

Article 6b(4) introduces a clear purpose limitation: any information provided or received under this Article must be used only for the purposes for which it was provided or received.

This is a familiar principle in EU law, consistent with broader data protection and fundamental rights standards. For sanctions compliance, it means:

Authorities should not repurpose information obtained under Article 6b for unrelated objectives, unless another legal basis applies.

Entities can expect that their disclosures, including sensitive business or personal data, will be used specifically to implement and enforce Regulation 833/2014.

For compliance officers, this purpose limitation is relevant in internal record‑keeping policies. Files created for Article 6b reporting are linked to sanctions enforcement purposes. If the same data is used for other internal objectives, such as fraud prevention or litigation, it should be considered whether additional internal legal bases and safeguards are needed, especially in light of the GDPR.

Interaction with Financial Crime and Sanctions Compliance Frameworks

Article 6b sits at the crossroads of several key topics: sanctions enforcement, reporting obligations, legal privilege, and data protection.

First, overlap with AML reporting. Many entities already have obligations to report suspicious activity related to money laundering and terrorist financing to Financial Intelligence Units. Article 6b is not an AML rule, but a sanctions rule. The same transaction or relationship might trigger both an AML suspicious transaction report and an Article 6b report where it touches on Russian sanctions. Firms should ensure that their policies distinguish these reporting channels and timelines, but also allow for efficient coordination to avoid inconsistent or incomplete reporting.

Second, sanctions screening and investigations. Modern sanctions compliance relies on screening, enhanced due diligence, and internal investigations. When these processes identify actual or potential breaches of Regulation 833/2014, Article 6b can be triggered. Institutions should define thresholds and criteria for when internal findings become “information which would facilitate the implementation of this Regulation” and thus must be forwarded to the competent authority.

Third, legal privilege and investigation design. In more complex cases, firms often instruct external counsel early, especially when they suspect exposure to sanctions violations or criminal risk. Article 6b’s explicit respect for legal privilege allows firms to involve counsel without automatically turning every communication into something that must be disclosed. However, the line between privileged assessments and non‑privileged factual material must be carefully managed. Document labelling, separate reporting lines, and clear internal guidance are practical tools here.

Fourth, cross‑border consistency. For groups operating in multiple Member States, different competent authorities may have different expectations around Article 6b reporting, including what counts as “information which would facilitate implementation” and what level of detail is expected. Central compliance functions should map these expectations and harmonise group standards to the highest common denominator where possible.

Practical Implications and Risk Management

Several practical points follow from Article 6b that are particularly relevant to financial crime professionals:

• There is a time‑bound duty to report relevant information. Sanctions‑related findings cannot simply be parked in internal reviews.
• There is a legal obligation to cooperate with verification. Once authorities engage, ignoring requests or providing incomplete responses is not an option.
• Legal privilege is protected, but not unlimited. Purely commercial, operational, or compliance communications are generally not covered; only those communications falling within the defined privilege scope benefit from the protection.
• Information is shared within the EU system. Entities should assume that significant sanctions‑related findings may inform EU‑wide supervisory and enforcement efforts.
• The purpose limitation sets expectations for how authorities use the data, but does not eliminate the risk that the same facts also give rise to other legal consequences where separate legal bases exist.

In response, institutions should:

• Clarify internal responsibilities for Article 6b assessments and reporting.
• Train frontline and investigation staff to recognise when their findings may trigger Article 6b obligations.
• Coordinate closely with legal teams to protect privilege while ensuring timely and accurate reporting.
• Maintain clear documentation that separates factual records, internal risk assessments, and privileged legal advice.

Conclusion

Article 6b of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 turns sanctions implementation into a shared responsibility between private actors, Member States, and EU institutions. It obliges entities to surface information that helps implement the sanctions regime, while recognising the fundamental importance of confidential legal advice.

For financial crime and sanctions professionals, this provision shapes how internal investigations are run, how findings are escalated, how legal counsel is involved, and how information is shared with authorities. Managing these obligations thoughtfully is now a core part of credible, defensible sanctions and financial crime compliance in the EU.

Dive deeper

• EU ¦ EUR-Lex; Consolidated text: Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine ¦ Link