Council of the EU ¦ EU to Sign Additional Protocol to the Warsaw Convention on AML Measures

EU authorises signature of the Council of Europe’s new anti-money laundering protocol

The Council of the European Union has authorised the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism with regard to anti-money laundering measures. Council Decision (EU) 2026/2356 was adopted on 13 October 2026, the day before the Protocol opened for signature, and published in the Official Journal on 21 October 2026. The Protocol adds virtual assets, the powers of financial intelligence units and national account registers to the Council of Europe’s main treaty on money laundering and confiscation, whose membership reaches well beyond the EU.

From negotiating mandate to signature

The Council gave the Commission its mandate to negotiate the Protocol for the Union in June 2024 (Decision (EU) 2024/1764). The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the final text on 15 May 2026, and the Protocol opened for signature on 14 October 2026. The Commission negotiated for the Union and, according to the Council, made sure the result is compatible with Union law.

Signature is only the first step. The decision authorises the signing subject to the Protocol’s later conclusion, which needs a separate Council decision, and the text of the Protocol will be published in the Official Journal only together with that decision. A companion decision, (EU) 2026/2355, covers the parts of the Protocol that concern judicial and police cooperation.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"Most of what the new Protocol contains is already familiar from EU law, which is exactly why it matters: it carries the EU and FATF model on virtual assets, FIU suspension powers and account registers to Council of Europe states outside the Union. Laundering networks rely on the weakest jurisdiction in a chain, and this treaty narrows the distance between the strongest and the weakest links in Europe.

For compliance teams the immediate impact is modest, but the direction is clear. Counterparties in non-EU European jurisdictions are likely to face comparable FIU powers in the years ahead, and cross-border suspensions and information requests should become faster and more predictable once the Protocol is in force."

Virtual assets enter the Warsaw Convention

The 2005 Convention, commonly called the Warsaw Convention, was drafted before crypto-assets existed. The Protocol adds definitions of virtual assets and virtual asset service providers, so that States Parties work from the same legal terms in an area where laundering techniques have moved faster than the treaty.

Shared definitions pay off in cross-border cases. When the proceeds of fraud, ransomware or drug trafficking pass through crypto-asset platforms in several jurisdictions, tracing and freezing them depends on authorities agreeing on what a virtual asset is and which businesses carry anti-money laundering obligations. The approach follows the international standard in FATF Recommendation 15 and extends it to the Convention’s wider membership.

Suspension powers for financial intelligence units

The Protocol contains provisions on the power of financial intelligence units to suspend transactions. A suspension gives an FIU time to analyse a suspicious transaction and alert law enforcement before the funds move out of reach. Without that power, intelligence often arrives after the money has already passed through further accounts or jurisdictions.

A suspension power anchored in a treaty with many States Parties makes it more likely that suspicious transfers involving non-EU counterparties can be stopped at short notice. Reporting entities may see such instructions more often in cross-border matters and should be ready to act on them quickly.

Closer cooperation among FIUs

The Protocol also covers cooperation among financial intelligence units. Professional money laundering networks split transactions across jurisdictions so that no single FIU sees the whole pattern, and structured exchange of financial intelligence between FIUs in Council of Europe states and other Parties is the obvious countermeasure. How far that exchange goes in detail will only be clear once the Protocol text is published.

Central account registers beyond the EU

States Parties are to set up a central automated mechanism, or a similar mechanism, at national level holding information on bank accounts, payment accounts, securities accounts, safe-deposit boxes and virtual asset accounts. With such a mechanism, FIUs and other competent authorities can quickly identify who holds or controls accounts in a country, instead of sending requests to institutions one by one.

The EU already has centralised account mechanisms, and the 2024 AML package widens their scope. If States Parties outside the Union adopt the same model, asset tracing in those countries could rely on comparable tools, which would make criminal proceeds parked abroad easier to locate.

Built on EU rules, signed alongside the Member States

The Council states that the Protocol’s rules overlap to a large extent with EU legislation and were inspired by it. The decision names Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation, Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (AMLD6) and Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. It also points to overlaps with older instruments that still apply only to Ireland, or between Denmark and Ireland.

Since the Union and its Member States share competence in these areas, the Union is to become a Party alongside its Member States. The Union signs for matters where the Protocol could affect common EU rules or alter their scope, and Member States keep their competence elsewhere and sign under their own procedures. The European Data Protection Supervisor delivered its opinion on 10 September 2026.

What the Protocol means in practice

Because most of its content mirrors rules the Union has already adopted, the Protocol adds little to the obligations of EU-based institutions. Its effect is felt in Council of Europe states outside the EU, and in other partners that may join, which would commit to definitions, FIU powers and account registers modelled on the EU and FATF approach. That would reduce the gaps launderers use when they route proceeds through neighbouring jurisdictions with weaker tools.

Compliance teams with counterparties in non-EU European jurisdictions should follow the signature and ratification process. When the Protocol text is published with the conclusion decision, its provisions on suspension and FIU cooperation will show how quickly cross-border requests can be expected to move.

Dive deeper

• EUR-LEX ¦ Council Decision (EU) 2026/2356 of 13 October 2026 on the signing of the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism with regard to anti-money laundering measures ¦ Link