AMLD6 vs AMLD5: The Defining Shift in European Financial Crime Compliance and New Enterprise Risks

The landscape of financial crime prevention in the European Union (EU) is in a constant state of evolution, driven by the need to stay ahead of increasingly sophisticated money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing (TF) threats. The transition from the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5) to the comprehensive package culminating in the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6) marks not just an update, but a fundamental shift towards harmonization, accountability, and digital resilience.

While AMLD5 primarily focused on broadening the scope of “obliged entities”—bringing in sectors like cryptocurrency exchanges, custodial wallet providers, and the art market—AMLD6 focuses intensely on harmonizing the criminal law definitions, expanding criminal liability, and standardizing predicate offenses across all member states. This strategic move fundamentally alters the risk profile for every business operating within the EU’s financial ecosystem.

This analysis dissects the core differences between the two directives and outlines the new compliance risks that businesses, particularly those in FinTech, banking, and real estate, must now address to avoid severe penalties under the new regime.

The Foundational Difference: Scope vs. Harmonization

The critical difference between AMLD5 and AMLD6 lies in their core objectives:

Feature	AMLD5 (Transposed by January 2020)	AMLD6 (Transposed by June 2021/Ongoing EU AML Package)
Primary Goal	Expanding the definition of “obliged entities” and improving beneficial ownership (BO) transparency.	Harmonizing the criminal law approach to money laundering and increasing accountability.
Key Target	Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), art dealers, real estate, and anonymous prepaid cards.	Criminal offenses, individual and corporate liability, and cross-border cooperation.
The ‘What’	Who must comply (Scope Expansion).	How the crime of ML is defined and punished (Criminal Law Alignment).
New Risk Focus	Operational risk from new unregulated sectors (e.g., crypto).	Legal and reputational risk from corporate criminal liability.

Экспортировать в Таблицы

AMLD5: The Digital Wake-Up Call

AMLD5 introduced the first significant regulatory framework for virtual assets. It mandated that VASP activities—specifically crypto-to-fiat exchanges and custodial wallets—fall under the AML/CFT umbrella, requiring them to implement Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) processes. This move was crucial for acknowledging the ML/TF risks associated with the burgeoning digital finance sector.

Key additions under AMLD5 included:

Public Access to Beneficial Ownership Registers: Improving transparency for entities.
Reduced Threshold for Anonymous Prepaid Cards: Lowering the risk exposure of easily transferable digital value.
Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) on High-Risk Third Countries: Stricter controls on funds originating from jurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT deficiencies.

AMLD6: Standardizing Crime and Accountability

AMLD6, which came into force in December 2020 (with a transposition deadline in June 2021) and is now integrated into the broader EU AML Package, represents the EU’s direct response to inconsistencies in national criminal definitions. The subsequent AML Regulation (AMLR) and the AMLA (Anti-Money Laundering Authority) Regulation now build upon the foundation laid by AMLD6.

Harmonized Predicate Offenses

This is perhaps the most profound change. AMLD6 mandates that all EU Member States adopt a harmonized list of 22 predicate offenses for money laundering. This means that if the proceeds of any of these 22 crimes (e.g., fraud, tax crimes, corruption, cybercrime, environmental crime) are laundered, it constitutes a money laundering offense across the entire bloc.

New Risks for Monitoring: Businesses must now ensure their transaction monitoring systems and internal typologies are updated to detect activities linked not just to traditional drug trafficking or fraud, but also to emerging threats like environmental crime (e.g., illegal wildlife trade) and sophisticated cybercrime (e.g., ransomware payment laundering). The risk of missing these new typologies is significantly elevated.

Expanded Criminal Liability: The Corporate Risk

AMLD6 dramatically increased accountability by extending criminal liability to legal persons (companies, partnerships). Previously, liability often rested solely with the individual employee or director. Now, a company can be held criminally responsible if a money laundering offense is committed for its benefit by:

A person with a leading position (e.g., CEO, Director).
A person with decision-making power.
A person acting under the authority of a manager, due to a lack of supervision or control.
New Risks for Governance: This creates a massive governance and accountability risk. Companies must prove they have adequate controls, training, and supervision protocols in place. A simple failure in an AML process—resulting in an ML offense—can now lead to severe sanctions against the company itself, including exclusion from public funding, placement under judicial supervision, or even a winding-up order.

Aiding, Abetting, and Self-Laundering

AMLD6 explicitly expands the definition of the crime of money laundering to include:

Aiding and Abetting: Assisting in the commission of the ML offense.
Inciting and Attempting: Actively encouraging or trying to commit the ML offense.
Self-Laundering: Where the person who committed the predicate offense also launders the illicit proceeds.
New Risks for Legal & Compliance: This clarity removes any ambiguity regarding accessory liability. Compliance teams and legal counsel must be hyper-aware that passively facilitating a transaction, even if the primary crime (the predicate offense) occurred elsewhere, now carries a clearer criminal risk.

Tougher Penalties and Enforcement

The minimum prison sentence for money laundering offenses was increased across the EU to four years. Furthermore, the maximum fines for legal persons for non-compliance with the AML framework have been significantly raised under the subsequent regulations (AMLR and AMLD6), giving CNAs (Competent National Authorities) more dissuasive power.

The New Digital and Regulatory Compliance Risks for Businesses

The combined impact of AMLD5 and AMLD6, alongside the emerging EU AML Regulation (AMLR) and Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR)—which implements the FATF Travel Rule—creates four major risk areas for obliged entities.

Cybercrime-Driven ML Risk

Since cybercrime is a mandatory predicate offense under AMLD6, financial institutions and VASPs are now directly responsible for detecting the flow of funds derived from:

Ransomware Payments: Tracing and blocking funds related to digital extortion.
Phishing & Data Breaches: Monitoring accounts linked to the sale of stolen credentials.
Mule Networks: Identifying accounts used to cash out crypto or fiat funds derived from online scams.

This requires a massive upgrade in blockchain analytics and cross-platform transaction monitoring capabilities, extending beyond traditional fiat systems. The risk of failing to identify these digital money flows is now a direct criminal liability risk for the organization itself.

Beneficial Ownership (BO) Verification and Enforcement Risk

While AMLD5 introduced BO registers, AMLD6 and the new AMLR strengthen the requirements for accuracy and verification. The new framework empowers register managers to carry out on-site inspections to verify beneficial ownership information.

New Risks for Corporations: Companies must ensure the information in the central registers is accurate and up-to-date. Relying on outdated data or using opaque structures (e.g., certain trusts or non-EU entities) now poses an elevated risk of sanctions and requires increased Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) efforts. The onus is on the obliged entity to perform robust checks for inconsistency.

The Digital Assets Gap (TFR and Crypto Compliance)

AMLD5 initially covered crypto exchanges and custodial wallets, but the subsequent Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR) is the real game-changer for digital asset companies. TFR implements the FATF Travel Rule, mandating that Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs)—a broader term than VASP—must collect, hold, and transmit originator and beneficiary information for all crypto transfers, with no de minimis threshold for transfers between CASPs.

New Risks for CASPs: The core risk is operational non-compliance. CASPs must integrate complex technological solutions to automatically comply with the Travel Rule, linking sender and receiver identity to the crypto transaction itself. Failure to do so by the implementation deadline exposes the business to massive regulatory fines and suspension of operations. The transition from AMLD5’s partial coverage to the TFR’s stringent end-to-end traceability requirement is the most challenging operational shift in digital finance compliance.

Cross-Border Cooperation and Information Sharing

AMLD6 mandates that Member States’ law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) must cooperate more effectively, particularly in relation to the new predicate offenses. The creation of the AMLA will further centralize supervision and support FIUs.

New Risks for Multinational Firms: A failure in AML compliance in one EU jurisdiction now has a clearer and faster pathway to criminal prosecution and regulatory action across the entire bloc. The concept of dual criminality—where a crime must be illegal in both jurisdictions for prosecution—is explicitly addressed and minimized under AMLD6. This requires a completely harmonized group-wide AML policy for any entity operating across multiple EU countries.

Strategic Compliance Adjustments: Moving Beyond AMLD5

To mitigate the new risks introduced by AMLD6 and the larger EU AML/CFT package, businesses must move beyond the basic compliance framework established under AMLD5.

Comprehensive Risk Assessment Revision

The National Risk Assessments (NRAs) and the Supranational Risk Assessment (SNRA) must be reviewed to specifically identify exposures related to the 22 predicate offenses, particularly cybercrime and environmental crime, which were often overlooked under AMLD5. This requires updating the internal Enterprise-Wide Risk Assessment (EWRA) methodology.

Technology and Data Infrastructure Investment

Compliance cannot be achieved manually under the new framework. Firms must invest in:

AI-Powered Monitoring: Utilizing machine learning to detect subtle patterns associated with the new predicate offenses.
FATF Travel Rule Solutions: Implementing accredited software to ensure all CASP transactions comply with the TFR data transmission requirements.
Perpetual KYC: Moving beyond one-off checks to continuous monitoring of customer risk, particularly concerning BO changes and changes in activity patterns.

Culture of Accountability and Training

Due to the expanded corporate criminal liability, AML training and governance must be enhanced. Training should focus specifically on aiding and abetting scenarios and demonstrating a clear, documented chain of decision-making. The board and senior management must clearly define the organization’s AML Risk Appetite Statement and be able to prove that control failures were not due to lack of oversight or systemic neglect.

Conclusion

The shift from AMLD5 to AMLD6 and the subsequent EU AML Package represents the EU’s most decisive step towards a truly harmonized financial crime fighting regime. While AMLD5 widened the net to catch new players like VASPs, AMLD6 sharpened the teeth of the enforcement system, defining standardized criminal offenses and, critically, extending criminal liability directly to the corporation.

For businesses, the central message is clear: compliance is no longer a check-the-box exercise. It is a fundamental risk management imperative, demanding substantial investment in technology, rigorous governance, and a proactive posture against the 22 predicate offenses. The new regime transforms compliance failure from a regulatory fine into a potentially devastating criminal matter, making the stakes higher than ever for the future of FinTech compliance in Europe. Navigating this environment successfully requires not only adhering to the letter of the law but embracing a culture of AML excellence.