Consultation on the draft RTS on pecuniary sanctions, administrative measures and periodic penalty payments

Consultation on the draft RTS on pecuniary sanctions, administrative measures and periodic penalty payments

Dnro L2026-11

CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT RTS ON PECUNIARY SANCTIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES AND PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENTS

The Finnish Bar Association, which, as a statutory body, regulates the work of attorneys-at-law and the practice of advocacy in Finland, thanks AMLA for the opportunity to comment on the draft Regulatory Technical Standards under Article 53(10) of Directive (EU) 2024/1640.

One of the statutory tasks of the Finnish Bar Association is to monitor legal developments in Finland and to contribute its expertise to society by issuing policy statements and initiating proposals. The Bar Association’s legal policy work aims to safeguard the rule of law and emphasises the effective implementation of the rule of law, legal protection and access to justice, fundamental and human rights, and the independence and autonomy of the legal profession.

In its requested statement, the Finnish Bar Association presents the following observations.

General Comments on the Draft RTS

The Finnish Bar Association draws attention to the fact that the Draft RTS on pecuniary sanctions, administrative measures and periodic penalty payments appear to have been designed predominantly with financial institutions in mind, even though they are now meant to apply also to the non-financial sector (including lawyers and law firms). In practice, this means that the Draft RTS are intended to cover a wide range of obliged entities with significantly differing capabilities and resources.

In the opinion of the Finnish Bar Association, this broad scope and the chosen approach—where the same RTS would apply to all obliged entities—fails to take into consideration essential aspects that are key to ensuring the harmonised and consistent application of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (“AMLR”) in relation to lawyers.

For the sake of clarity, the general comments below also apply to other RTS where they are meant to cover both obliged entities within the financial sector and those within the non-financial sector.

As key differences from other obliged entities, lawyers are covered by AML rules only when engaging in certain specified activities, whereas other activities remain outside the scope of AML rules. The independent legal profession is also bound by strict legal professional privilege, which must be fully upheld and remains a fundamental element of the basic rights of all EU citizens — including the right to a fair trial, the right of defence, and the right to independent legal representation.[1] Additionally, lawyers and law firms differ significantly from obliged entities in the financial sector in terms of financial and material resources, as well as size and organisational structure. The majority of law firms are SMEs or sole practitioners and therefore do not have the same means or scale for automation as banks and other financial institutions.[2]

The Finnish Bar Association expresses concern that the chosen approach will not resolve the already existing problems relating to legal uncertainty surrounding AML rules across Member States, and that such uncertainty and ambiguity is likely to persist under the new framework. This approach may also make the objective of harmonised implementation across the EU more difficult to achieve.

In light of the above, the Finnish Bar Association strongly encourages AMLA to develop specific RTS that would apply to the legal profession. Such dedicated RTS would be highly justified given the unique characteristics and role of the legal profession within the European legal order.[3] The Finnish Bar Association also stresses that supervisory activities must not result in the disclosure of information protected by legal professional privilege (LPP), professional secrecy, or professional secrecy obligations under national law and further notes that, should AMLA move to prepare specific RTS for lawyers, they should be developed in close cooperation with the legal profession and its self-regulatory and supervisory bodies (The independent Bar Associations), in order to ensure that supervisory activities remain aligned with the ethical and legal obligations of lawyers under both national and EU law.[4]

At a minimum, the Finnish Bar Association considers that AMLA should develop RTS specifically covering the non-financial sector, in which the significant differences in both the nature of activities and the resources of the actors are properly taken into account. The National Bar Associations and the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (“CCBE”) should also be included in this dialogue.

Specific Comments regarding the Draft RTS on Pecuniary Sanctions, Administrative Measures and Periodic Penalty Payments

Regarding the specific questions on the abovementioned Draft RTS, the Finnish Bar Association refers to the statement submitted and published by the CCBE.

in Helsinki 9 March 2026

Niko Jakobsson
Secretary General
Finnish Bar Association

[1] See for example the case C-694/20, Orde van Vlaamse Balies et al. where the Court stated that the attorney-client privilege is afforded even stronger protection than the standard protection under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: “Unless in exceptional circumstances, clients must be able to reasonably rely on the fact that their attorney will not disclose, without their consent, that they have sought legal advice.”
[2] For example in Finland, over 80% of law firms are 1–2 person firms (31.12.2025 80,4%).
[3] For example see the cases C-309/99, Wouters, where the Court stated that an attorney must be independent of public authorities, other actors, and third parties and the case C-155/79, AM & S Europe vs. Commission and C-550/07P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akros Chemicals vs. Commission, where it was sated that an independent legal profession is part of the Union’s legal order.
[4] Also taking into account of the jurisprudence of the Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).