Administrative sanction of 8 May 2024 for non-compliance  
with professional obligations related to anti-money  
laundering / counter financing of terrorism  
Luxembourg, 8 July 2024  
Administrative decision  
On 8 May 2024 the CSSF imposed an administrative fine amounting to EUR 3,000,000 on the credit  
institution ****************** S.A. (“the credit institution”).  
Legal framework/motivation  
The administrative fine was imposed by the CSSF pursuant to Article 2-1, paragraph (1), Article 8-  
4, paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) and Article 8-5 of the amended Law of 12 November 2004 on the  
fight against money laundering and terrorist financing (“AML/CFT Law”) for non-compliance with  
anti-money laundering and terrorism financing’s (“AML/CFT”) professional obligations.  
In order to determine the type and amount of the administrative sanction, the CSSF has duly taken  
into account all the legal and factual elements set out and discussed with the credit institution, the  
number, severity and duration of the breaches that have been observed at the time of the inspection  
and the level of cooperation of the credit institution with the Financial Intelligence Unit in accordance  
with the provisions of Article 8-5 of the AML/CFT Law.  
In addition, the CSSF has also duly taken into consideration the fact that the credit institution not  
only fully cooperated with the CSSF throughout the investigation but also reacted by putting in place  
a general action plan and initiated corrective measures during and after the inspection in order to  
remedy the breaches found.  
The professional obligations in relation to which the breaches were observed are set out in particular  
in:  
•
•
the AML/CFT Law;  
the amended Grand-ducal Regulation of 1 February 2010 (“AML/CFT Grand-ducal  
Regulation”) specifying certain provisions of the AML/CFT Law; and  
The amended CSSF Regulation No 12-02 of 14 December 2012 on the fight against money  
laundering and terrorist financing (“CSSF Regulation 12-02”);  
•
as applicable at the time of the facts.  
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION  
1/3  
Legal basis for the publication  
This publication is made pursuant to the provisions of Article 8-6, paragraph (1) of the AML/CFT  
Law, insofar as, following an assessment of proportionality, the CSSF considers that the publication  
on a named basis is not disproportionate and jeopardises neither the stability of the financial markets  
nor an ongoing investigation.  
Context and major cases of non-compliance with the  
professional obligations identified  
This administrative fine follows an inspection (“Inspection”) carried out by the CSSF on the credit  
institution between May and November 2021 covering certain aspects of the AML/CFT and internal  
governance frameworks in relation with a limited number of files belonging to a group of related  
clients. During the Inspection, the CSSF identified severe breaches of AML/CFT professional  
obligations which related in particular to the following points:  
•
The implementation of enhanced due diligence related to the source of funds and source of  
wealth of the clients being part of the relevant group of related clients, presenting a higher risk  
of money laundering and terrorist financing, was deficient and did not provide the credit  
institution with complete, consistent and duly documented information, which, in view of the  
level of risk of the clients concerned, constituted a failure to comply with Article 3, paragraph  
(5) and Article 3-2, paragraphs (1), (2) and (4) of the AML/CFT Law, Article 3, paragraph (4)  
of the AML/CFT Grand-ducal Regulation and Articles 26 and 31, paragraph (2) of the CSSF  
Regulation 12-02 and therefore a failure to comply with the obligation to take additional  
measures to establish the source of wealth and the source of funds involved in business  
relationships that present a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.  
The ongoing due diligence applied to the monitoring of transactions in respect of the group of  
related clients presenting a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing was deficient  
and therefore did not enable the credit institution to identify unusual or suspicious transactions,  
in particular when these transactions were not in line with the expected transactions on the  
accounts, which, in view of the level of risk of the customers concerned, constituted a failure to  
comply with Article 2-2, paragraph (1), Article 3, paragraphs (2) d) and (7) and Article 3-2,  
paragraphs (1) and (4) of the AML/CFT Law, Article 1, paragraphs (3) and (4) and Article 3,  
paragraph (4) of the AML/CFT Grand-ducal Regulation and Article 31, paragraph (2) and Article  
32 of CSSF Regulation 12-02, which emphasize the need to examine transactions to ensure  
that they are consistent with the professional's knowledge of its client, especially in the case of  
higher-risk clients.  
•
•
•
The credit institution's lack of vigilance with regard to the group of related clients, of which  
certain clients were subject to adverse press articles, prevented it from informing promptly the  
Cellule de Renseignement Financier on its own initiative of suspicious activities and/or  
transactions, thereby failing to comply with Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) of the AML/CFT Law  
and Article 39, paragraph (5) of the CSSF Regulation 12-02.  
In addition, by closing certain business relationships being part of the relevant group of related  
clients (and thus transferring their assets outside the credit institution), despite having sufficient  
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION  
2/3  
indicia, which as such generated suspicions of money laundering, without first informing the  
Cellule de Renseignement Financier, the credit institution failed to comply with Article 5,  
paragraph (3) of the AML/CFT Law.  
•
•
The communication with the customer by a limited number of employees that a blocking was  
in place further to the instruction of the Cellule de Renseignement Financier, without the  
customer having sought himself to obtain information, constitutes a breach of Article 5,  
paragraph (5) of the AML/CFT Law.  
The credit institution's internal organisation regarding the validation and/or maintaining of  
business relationships with a limited number of files belonging to a group of related clients who  
present a higher risk of money laundering and terrorist financing was deficient and did not allow  
sufficient involvement of the credit institution's responsible persons for AML/CFT matters; this  
constituted non-compliance with Article 3-2, paragraph (4) of the AML/CFT Law, Article 3,  
paragraphs (1) and (4) of the AML/CFT Grand-ducal Regulation and Article 31, paragraph (2)  
of CSSF Regulation 12-02.  
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION  
3/3