In case of discrepancies between the French and the English text, the French text shall prevail.

Luxembourg, 17 February 2017

To all the persons and entities under the

supervision of the CSSF

CIRCULAR CSSF 17/650

as amended by Circular CSSF 20/744

Re: Application of the Law of 12 November 2004 on the fight against money

laundering and terrorist financing, as amended (hereinafter “AML/CFT

Law”) and Grand-ducal Regulation of 1 February 2010 providing details on

certain provisions of the AML/CFT Law (“AML/CFT GDR”) to predicate

tax offences

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This circular follows on from the new criminal provisions laid down in the Law of 23 December

2016 implementing the 2017 tax reform (hereinafter “TRL”) which specifically concern the

extension of the money laundering offence to aggravated tax fraud (fraude fiscale aggravée)

and tax evasion (escroquerie fiscale). These new provisions transpose the revised FATF

standard of 2012/2013 and of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes

of money laundering or terrorist financing, in that they extend the money laundering offence

to a new category of serious underlying offences, namely the “tax crimes related to direct and

indirect taxes”.

Thus, following the entry into force of the TRL, which amended, among other things, Article

506-1 of the Penal Code, the professionals subject to the obligations with respect to money

laundering and terrorist financing (hereinafter “AML/CFT”) shall, henceforth, take into

account the new predicate tax crimes within the scope of their professional obligations, notably

customer due diligence and cooperation with authorities.

The new predicate tax offences to money laundering are as follows¹:

¹Please refer to Annex 2 for the wording of these provisions.

-

aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion within the meaning of subparagraphs (5) and (6)

of paragraph 396 and of paragraph 397 of the General Tax Law (Abgabenordnung)

(hereinafter “GTL”);

aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion within the meaning of the first and second

subparagraphs of Article 29 of the Law of 28 January 1948 aiming to ensure the fair

and exact collection of registration and inheritance duties, as amended (hereinafter

“1948 Law”); and

-

aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion within the meaning of Article 80(1) of the Law of

12 February 1979 on value added tax, as amended (hereinafter “VAT Law”).

It should be noted that the simple tax fraud is subject to administrative sanctions and is not a

predicate tax offence.

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 25 of the TRL, the money laundering

offence is punishable with respect to the predicate offences of aggravated tax fraud and tax

evasion committed as from 1 January 2017.

This circular, drafted jointly with the Financial Intelligence Unit (hereinafter “FIU”), aims at

(i) providing further details by both authorities concerning the practical application of these

new provisions by the professionals of the financial sector supervised by the CSSF (hereinafter

“the professional(s)”) and (ii) providing a list of indicators to assist the professionals. More

generally, this circular does not alter the existing professional obligations in any way.

Moreover, this circular follows on from the CSSF’s communications with respect to the

principles of tax transparency, notably through the circular letter dated 3 December 2012 (for

credit institutions and investment firms) and Circular CSSF 15/609 of 27 March 2015 on the

developments in automatic exchange of tax information and anti-money laundering in tax

matters.

1

CUSTOMER DUE DILIGENCE

1.1 APPLICATION IN TIME

1.1.1 NEW BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

For new business relationships entered into after 1 January 2017, the professional must obtain

information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, including on the

origin of the funds involved, to enable the professional to form an opinion on the financial

situation of the prospect, and to avoid an abuse of the business relationship with the aim of

committing a money laundering offence in relation to a predicate tax offence, committed or

attempted, in Luxembourg or abroad².

1.1.2 EXISTING BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

As regards existing business relationships, the professional subject to the AML/CFT Law must

obtain the information referred to in point 1.1.1, at “appropriate times on a risk-sensitive basis”

²Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of the AML/CFT Law.

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 2/14

as provided for in Article 1(4) of the AML/CFT GDR and Article 3(5) of the AML/CFT Law.

This refers, among other things, to situations involving a high risk or a significant transaction.

With respect to dormant accounts, this means the moment at which the account is reactivated

or the moment at which the assets are claimed by an entitled person.

1.1.3 MONITORING OF THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

Throughout the business relationship, the professional subject to the AML/CFT Law must

perform ongoing due diligence, notably by verifying that the transactions are consistent with

the professional’s knowledge of the customer’s situation and with the customer’s risk profile³.

1.1.4 CLOSED BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

Business relationships that were closed before 31 December 2016 do not need to be subject to

retrospective due diligence.

1.2 SCOPE

The professional’s due diligence must extend to the tax obligations of the customers, be they

resident or non-resident taxpayers.

As regards the Luxembourg tax obligations, due diligence includes all types of direct taxes

(income tax, corporate tax, etc.), registration and inheritance duties and value added tax.

As for foreign tax obligations, due diligence applies to tax offences incriminated in the States

concerned, even if the legislation of the country of tax residence does not impose the same type

of duties and taxes or does not have the same duties and tax regulations as Luxembourg. Thus,

due diligence must extend, for example, to wealth tax or inheritance duties for direct

descendants due, where applicable, in the tax residence country of the customer, without the

professional being required to have an exhaustive and thorough knowledge of the foreign tax

legislation.

2

INTERNAL ORGANISATION

The internal AML/CFT policies, procedures and measures must be extended to the money

laundering of predicate tax offences, notably as regards the risk assessment of the

professional’s activity, of the professional’s customer base and the determination of the

information that needs to be collected.

In particular, the professional must raise the awareness of and train the employees concerned

in order to enable them to identify the transactions that may be linked to the laundering of

advantages from predicate tax offences.

This new framework must be implemented by the AML/CFT compliance officer and be

controlled by the professional’s internal audit. The professional’s authorised management must

³Article 3(2)(d) and 3(7) of the AML/CFT Law and Article 1(3) of the AML/CFT GDR.

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 3/14

closely monitor the implementation of the framework and regularly report thereon to the Board

of Directors or to the Supervisory Board.

3

COOPERATION WITH THE AUTHORITIES

The professionals must inform, without delay and on their own initiative, the FIU where they

know, suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that money laundering of a predicate tax

offence is being committed, has been committed or has been attempted. The professionals

concerned must refer to the FIU’s guideline concerning suspicious transaction reporting⁴.

Communicating at the same time to the CSSF is required based on the criteria set out in Circular

CSSF 11/528 of 15 December 2011⁵.

3.1 NATURE OF THE SUSPICION

A suspicion may arise in consideration of the person concerned, its development, the origin of

its assets, the nature and purpose or terms of the operation in question. The professional must

not wait until it is certain that a predicate tax offence is being committed, has been committed

or has been attempted before reporting a suspicion. The professional must not reconstitute the

tax statements of its customer in order to calculate the amount of defrauded taxes/undue

reimbursement or wait for a tax reassessment.

In this context, the professional shall rely on indicators likely to reveal potential laundering of

a predicate tax offence. The scope of these indicators shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis.⁶

If an indicator or a combination of indicators raise doubts, the professional shall examine the

business relationship/transaction more thoroughly in order to verify if doubts are justified given

the context of the operations and the professional’s knowledge of the customer’s situation.

Where doubts remain, the professional shall make a suspicious transaction report to the FIU.

Such indicators may be the result of, e.g., the unjustified use of shell companies, the

interposition of persons without any explanation regarding their usefulness, inconsistent

financial operations, anomalies in invoices, purchase orders or supporting documents,

unexplained use of transit accounts, unusual and unexplained withdrawal of cash, refusal to

produce supporting documents, fund transfers to a foreign country followed by the repatriation

of these funds as a loan, deposit by an individual of funds unrelated to the profession or the

origin of the customer’s funds, etc.

Other examples of indicators are listed in Annex 1.

⁴http://www.justice.public.lu/fr/legislation/circulaires/ligne_directrice_17_01/dos_v_2.pdf

⁵https://www.cssf.lu/en/document/circular-cssf-11-528/

6

As regards dormant accounts, the professional shall use the indicators likely to reveal potential money laundering of a

predicate tax offence and assess the scope of these indicators on a case-by-case basis.

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 4/14

3.2 REPORTING THRESHOLD

3.2.1 PREDICATE TAX OFFENCES COMMITTED IN LUXEMBOURG

The TRL distinguishes between simple tax fraud subject to administrative sanctions, and

aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion, which are subject to penal sanctions. Only tax crimes are

predicate offences and subject to the professional obligations under the AML/CFT Law.

It should be stressed that the suspicious transaction reporting obligation applies without the

reporting person needing to qualify the underlying offence⁷.

Consequently, the professional is not required to qualify the aggravated tax fraud or the tax

evasion. In particular, the reporting person does not need to reconstitute the tax statements of

its customer to ascertain if one of the thresholds for predicate tax offences is exceeded (a quarter

of the annual tax due, EUR 200,000 or a significant amount either as an absolute amount or in

relation to the annual tax due); there need only be circumstances that make the hypothesis of

these thresholds being exceeded plausible.

However, the professional is not required to report to the FIU if it appears plausible that the

annual amount of eluded taxes, duties or levies does not exceed EUR 10,000. The afore-

mentioned possibility not to report below the EUR 10,000 threshold does, however, not apply

to cases of tax evasion for which the professional concerned must assess whether the threshold

of “significant amount either as an absolute amount or in relation to the annual tax due” has

been exceeded.

3.2.2 PREDICATE TAX OFFENCES COMMITTED ABROAD

Under Article 506-3 of the Penal Code, laundering of advantages from predicate tax offences

referred to in Article 506-1 of this Code, is also punishable where the predicate offence was

committed abroad, subject to the offence being punishable in the State in which it was

committed (principle of dual criminality condition).

Therefore, the minimum thresholds provided for in the TRL do not apply to tax crimes

committed abroad.

3.3 PERSONS CONCERNED

The potential authors of tax crimes are the person subject to the eluded taxes, duties or charges

and the beneficiaries of undue reimbursements. The persons that have given the instructions to

commit these tax offences or that have knowingly given them the instruments, helped or

assisted them, are considered as their accomplices. Thus, the suspicion of money laundering of

a predicate tax offence may not only concern the person subject to tax and deriving a pecuniary

benefit from the tax crime, but also the accomplice whose remunerations are likely to constitute

the proceed of its aiding and abetting.

⁷Article 5(1)(a) of the AML/CFT Law.

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 5/14

3.4 ATTEMPT

Attempted money laundering is punishable by the same sanctions as a completed money

laundering offence⁸.

Money laundering and attempted money laundering also apply to attempted predicate tax

offences.

An attempted tax crime (i.e. aggravated tax fraud or tax evasion) consists in a beginning of the

execution which is not followed by a voluntary abandonment. The beginning of the execution

of a tax crime consists in submitting a statement, of which the taxpayer or accomplice is aware

that it is inexact, to the tax administration.

The tax crime is completed from the moment the tax is eluded or the reimbursement unduly

received is definitively established by the competent tax administration.

Non-filing of a tax statement within the allocated deadlines is not a tax crime, but a sui generis

breach of the General Tax Law, punishable by an administrative fine⁹.

However, the professional must not wait to be certain that the customer files an inexact

statement with the administration, but shall report its suspicion to the FIU as soon as

circumstances allow presuming the filing of a false statement.

On behalf of the State prosecutor,

******************

Procureur d’Etat adjoint

On behalf of the CSSF,

****************** ******************

Director Director

******************

Director

******************

Director General

⁸Article 506-1 point (4) of the Penal Code.

⁹Paragraph 166, subparagraph 3 of the GTL.

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 6/14

“Annex 1

List of indicators concerning the professional obligation to report suspicions regarding

the predicate offence of laundering of an aggravated tax fraud or tax evasion

This annex provides a list of indicators likely to reveal a possible laundering of a predicate tax

offence to the professionals of the financial sector subject to the AML/CFT supervision of the

CSSF. The professional shall respect the following steps:

• If an indicator or a combination of indicators raises doubts, the professional shall examine the

business relationship/transaction more thoroughly in order to verify if doubts are justified given

the context of the transactions and the professional’s knowledge of the customer’s situation

(KYC and KYT).

• Where doubts remain, the professional shall report the suspicions to the FIU.

A single indicator, or even several indicators, are not necessarily sufficient grounds for raising

a suspicion of laundering.

It must be noted that the following examples of indicators are neither exhaustive, nor do they

exclude other criteria, and that they may change over time.

I. Common indicators (“List I.”)

(1) The customer is a legal person or a legal arrangement set up in a jurisdiction that is not

subject to AEOI/CRS/FATCA reporting¹⁰and this “entity” has no economic, asset or other

reality, except where (1) the customer demonstrates that its establishment complies with the

legal provisions of the country of residence of the customer/beneficial owner or (2) the

existence of the entity is in effect known to the tax authorities of the country of residence of

the beneficial owner based on supporting evidence.

(2) The customer is a company or uses companies in which a multitude of statutory changes

(unexpected and short-term changes) have taken place, for example with the purpose of

appointing new managers, moving the registered office to a jurisdiction which is not subject to

AEOI/CRS/FATCA reporting, amending the corporate purpose or corporate name, not justified

by the economic situation of the company.

(3) The use of companies or legal structures located in a jurisdiction other than the tax residence

or place of regular economic or professional interests of the beneficial owner, except where

(1) the customer demonstrates that its establishment complies with the legal provisions of the

country of residence of the customer/beneficial owner or (2) the existence of the legal person

is in effect known by the tax authorities of the country of residence of the beneficial owner

based on supporting evidence.

¹⁰http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/crs-implementation-and-assistance/crs-by-jurisdiction/

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 7/14

(4) Completion of a commercial transaction at a price that is obviously under-estimated,

overestimated or inconsistent.

(5) Findings of anomalies in the documentation justifying the transactions, and notably atypical

or unusual transactions (e.g. no VAT number, no invoice number, no address, all of which may

put into question the supporting evidence of the document supplied).

(6) The customer’s refusal to provide the tax compliance documentation or information needed

for tax reportings or the presence of indications raising suspicions regarding fiscal

noncompliance (e.g. refusal to communicate the tax identification number or the fiscal address,

refusal to complete the AEOI/CRS/FATCA self-certification, refusal to receive a tax reporting,

the AEOI self-certification signed by the customer states a fiscal address in Luxembourg while

the postal address and/or telephone number and/or any other information shows that the

customer does not reside in Luxembourg).

(7) Substantial increase, over a short period, of movements on banking account(s) which was

(were) until then scarcely active or inactive, without this rise being justified, notably by a

verified development of economic or business activities of the customer.

(8) Observation of inconsistencies between the business volume (e.g. based on company

accounts) and movements on bank accounts.

(9) Substantial and/or irregular transactions linked to professional activities on personal/private

accounts.

(10) Payment or reception of fees to or from foreign companies without business activities or

without substance or link between the counterparties and whose purpose seems to be

economically unjustified re-invoicing.

(11) Classification of a company or legal structure as “Active Non-Financial Entity” based on

CRS regulations and without the change being justified by the development of the business of

the company or legal structure.

(12) Requests for assistance or provision of services whose purpose could be to foster

circumvention of the customer’s tax obligations.

(13) Use by the customer of complex structures without economic or asset purpose, except

where e.g. (1) the customer demonstrates that its establishment complies with the legal

provisions of the country of residence of the customer/beneficial owner or (2) the existence of

the legal person is in effect known by the tax authorities of the country of residence of the

beneficial owner based on supporting evidence.

(14) Unjustified refusal of any contact or unjustified request of hold mail and more particularly

if the customer is domiciled in a jurisdiction that is not subject to AEOI/CRS/FATCA reporting

(e.g. the unjustified request of a customer not to be contacted ever in writing (post and/or

email); the customer states that tax obligations are fulfilled and has signed a tax compliance

statement, but has never collected its post or consulted its account online. The customer does

thus not have the necessary elements to fulfil its tax obligations).

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 8/14

(15) The transfer of funds from a country that according to the professional could be considered

as being risky from a tax transparency point of view, except for example where the customer

provides evidence that the funds have been declared.

(16) Inconsistent information available to the professional concerning the tax residence of the

customer.

(17) Use of so-called back-to-back loans, without valid justification.

(18) Move of the tax residence from a jurisdiction that is not subject to AEOI/CRS/FATCA

reporting to a jurisdiction that is subject to such reporting without notifying the professional,

in order, potentially, to escape reporting.

(19) Financial transactions that are inconsistent with the usual activities of the customer or with

its profile or with the asset situation stated by the customer or suspect operations in sectors that

are prone to VAT or other tax fraud, in a generally cross-border context.

(20) Withdrawal or deposit of cash that is not justified by the level or nature of the commercial

activity or known professional or asset situation.

(21) Documentation on tax compliance leaving room for doubt as it was issued by a person

close to the final customer and there being a potential conflict of interests.

The customer reference should be read as investor for the above listed indicators in the context

of the collective investment activities and the professionals providing services in that particular

sector.

II. Specific indicators concerning collective investment activities (“List II.”)

Complex investment structuring

1) The collective investment fund¹¹(the “UCI”) has recourse to a complex investment

structure, involving one or more legal entities or one or more legal investment structures

interposed between the UCI and the ultimate target investment, located in different jurisdictions

with some of them not complying with international transparency standards, except where this

investment structure complies with the tax provisions of the country of residence of these

companies or legal investment structures.

Tax base erosion

2) The IFM business model results in a significant decrease of the investment fund manager’s

(the “IFM”)¹²taxable earnings by using cross-border transfers, triggering questions regarding

¹¹As defined in points 1) a. to e. of CSSF Circular 19/721

¹²As defined in point 1) f. of CSSF Circular 19/721

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 9/14

compliance with transfer pricing rules and more generally with Luxembourg laws

implementing directly or indirectly BEPS related actions¹³. Such cross-border transfers can be:

-

financial flows (e.g. management or marketing commissions and/or retrocessions

but also interest or dividend flows); and/or

intangible assets.

Investment transactions

3) The UCI performs investment transactions on unregulated markets where the economic

beneficiaries of the counterparties to the transaction and/or their intermediaries are located in

a jurisdiction not subject to AEOI / CRS / FATCA reporting or which present risk factors

similar to those specified under point 79 of the FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach for

the Securities Sector dated October 2018¹⁴.

4) Transactions do not have apparent economic rationale in a specific context (e.g. Private

Equity / Real Estate context).

5) Frequent transactions result in losses for which the professionals or the counterparty appears

to have no concern.

Efficient portfolio management techniques¹⁵

6) The UCI uses efficient portfolio management techniques such as securities lending

transactions which may create tax arbitrage or tax refund that have been or could be considered

as aggravated tax fraud/tax evasion as highlighted i.a. by ESMA in its report “ESMA70-154-

1193 - Preliminary findings on multiple withholding tax reclaim schemes”.

SICAR

7) The UCI, under the SICAR Law of 15 June 2004, is not in a position to fulfil the requirement

of investing in securities representing “risk capital” and in particular, to create value at the level

of the portfolio companies/of developing the target entities in accordance with the requirements

of CSSF Circular 06/241 specifying aforementioned law. Not fulfilling these requirements

would have as a consequence that the company uses illegally the SICAR status which could

have a significant tax impact.

Subscription tax

8) The UCI or the IFM is not in possession of adequate and sufficient information on the quality

and status of the investors in order to make the subscription tax declarations to the

Administration des Enregistrements et Domaines in an appropriate manner and in accordance

with the legal requirements applicable to it, unless it can be justified that

¹³The Base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) refers to tax planning strategies used by multinational enterprises that

exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to avoid paying tax. The BEPS actions developed in the context of the OECD/G20

BEPS Project aim at addressing tax avoidance and ensuring that profits are taxed where economic activities generating the

profits are performed and where value is created. http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/

¹⁴http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/rba-securities-sector.html

¹⁵As defined in the CSSF Circular 08/356

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 10/14

-

these legal or tax statuses of the investors comply with the legal requirements

governing the subscription tax; and

the investors’ status comply with the legal provisions of the country of residence of

these investors.

Investor tax reporting

9) The UCI or the IFM distributes its units¹⁶in a country which has in place a set of obligations

for investor tax reporting. The reporting is based, among other things, on various requirements

such as,

-

the registration with the tax authorities and/or,

the tax reporting of tax data.

The above mentioned requirements will be used by the investors (or the final investors in case

of a fund of funds structure) for their tax returns or by the paying agents to deduct or levy

withholding taxes that may be considered equivalent to tax advances to their personal or

corporate tax return, unless the UCI or the IFM can justify that:

-

it has taken the necessary steps to ensure that such steps taken by the UCI or the

IFM and/or by a service provider comply with the rules and principles of the local

tax laws; and

-

the UCI or the IFM has taken the necessary steps to provide information to investors

or foreign tax or regulatory authorities on a timely manner as required by the local

laws of the country of distribution.”¹⁷

¹⁶As defined in paragraph 27 of Article 1 of the Law of 17 December 2010 or securities or partnership interests as defined in

Article 1 of the law of 13 February 2007 (hereafter the "Units")

¹⁷Amended by Circular CSSF 20/744

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 11/14

Annex 2

Wording of the new predicate tax offences for money laundering as referred to in the

TRL¹⁸

Excerpt from the TRL

• Penal Code (Article 18 of the TRL)

“In Article 506-1 point (1) of the Penal Code, the following three indents shall be inserted

before the last indent:

“ - an aggravated tax fraud or tax evasion within the meaning of subparagraphs (5)

and (6) of paragraph 396 and of paragraph 397 of the General Tax Law;

- an aggravated tax fraud or tax evasion within the meaning of the first and the second

subparagraphs of Article 29 of the Law of 28 January 1948, aiming to ensure the fair

and exact collection of registration and inheritance duties, as amended;

- an aggravated tax fraud and tax evasion within the meaning of Article 80(1) of the

Law of 12 February 1979 on value added tax, as amended;””

• Amendment of the General Tax Law of 22 May 1931, as amended

(“Abgabenordnung”)

(Article 7, points 12°, 13° and 15° of the TRL)

“12° Paragraph 396, subparagraph (5) shall be amended as follows:

“(5) If the fraud relates to a tax amount exceeding a quarter of the annual tax due and without

being lower than EUR 10,000 or to an undue reimbursement exceeding a quarter of the annual

reimbursement due without being lower than EUR 10,000 or if the eluded annual tax or annual

reimbursement exceeds EUR 200,000, such fraud will be punished as aggravated tax fraud by

imprisonment from one month to three years and a fine of between EUR 25,000 and an amount

equal to six times the amount of eluded tax or unduly received reimbursement. ” ”

“13° ...Paragraph 396 shall be completed by a new subparagraph (6) worded as follows:

“(6) If the fraud relates to a significant amount either in absolute terms or in relation to the

annual tax due or annual reimbursement due and has been committed through the systematic

use of fraudulent acts with the purpose of dissimulating pertinent facts from tax authorities or

of persuading them that inaccurate information is factual, such fraud shall be punished as tax

evasion by imprisonment of one month to five years and a fine of between EUR 25,000 and an

equal to ten times the amount of eluded tax or unduly received reimbursement. ” ”

“15° Paragraph 397, subparagraph (1) shall be amended as follows:

¹⁸Unofficial English translation.

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 12/14

(1) Attempted aggravated tax fraud within the meaning of paragraph 396, subparagraph (5)

and attempted tax evasion within the meaning of paragraph 396, subpargraph (6) shall be

punishable by the same penalties. ” ”

• Amendment of the Law of 28 January 1948 aiming to ensure the fair and exact

collection of registration and inheritance duties, as amended (Article 13, point 4° of the

TRL)

“4° Article 29 shall be amended and read as follows:

“The person that fraudulently evaded or attempted to evade payment of all or some taxes,

duties and levies, the collection of which is the responsibility of the Administration de

l’Enregistrement et des Domaines except for the value added tax, and such committed or

attempted fraud concerns, per reporting period or triggering event, an amount exceeding a

quarter of the duties due without being lower than EUR 10,000 or an amount exceeding EUR

200,000, will be punished, for aggravated tax fraud, by imprisonment of one month to three

years and a fine of between EUR 25,000 and an amount equal to six times the amount of eluded

duties.

If the person has systematically used fraudulent acts with the purpose of dissimulating pertinent

facts from tax authorities or of persuading them that inaccurate information is factual, and if

such committed or attempted fraud concerned, per reporting period or triggering event, a

significant amount either in absolute terms or in relation to the duties due, the author of such

act shall be punished, for tax evasion, by imprisonment of one month to five years and a fine

of between EUR 25,000 and an amount equal to ten times the amount of eluded duties. ” ”

(...)".

• Amendment of the Law of 12 February 1979 on value added tax, as amended

(Article 12, point 6° of the TRL)

“6° Article 80(1) shall be amended and read as follows:

“1. If the committed or attempted offence referred to in Article 77(3) relates, per reporting

period, to an amount exceeding a quarter of the value added tax due without being lower than

EUR 10,000 or an undue reimbursement exceeding a quarter of the reimbursement due without

being lower than EUR 10,000, or if the eluded value added tax or unduly received

reimbursement exceeds EUR 200,000 per reporting period, the author of such fraud will be

punished, for aggravated tax fraud, by imprisonment of one month to three years and a fine of

between EUR 25,000 and an amount equal to six times the amount of eluded tax or unduly

received reimbursement.

If the person has systematically used fraudulent acts with the purpose of dissimulating pertinent

facts from tax authorities or of persuading them that inaccurate information is factual, or if

this person is a member of an organised group, and if such committed or attempted fraud

concerns, per reporting period, a significant amount of eluded value added tax or unduly

received reimbursement either in absolute terms or in relation to the duties on value added tax

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 13/14

due per reporting period or reimbursement due, the author of such fraud shall be punished, for

tax evasion, by imprisonment of one month to five years and a fine of between EUR 25,000 and

an amount representing ten times the amount of eluded tax or unduly reimbursed.

(...)".

Circular CSSF 17/650

page 14/14