Art. 6 Transitional provisions | RTS on risk assessment to select institutions for direct supervision | AML

This article carves out specific exceptions and modifications to the standard methodology when it is being applied for the purposes of the first selection process under Article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1620.

Rather than introducing entirely new rules, it acts as a targeted overlay on earlier articles in this regulation — particularly Article 3 — limiting or adjusting how certain data points and scoring mechanisms are used in that specific context.

Notably, while the supervisory adjustment mechanism from Article 3 is switched off for this process, a more limited version of it is reintroduced: the controls quality score can still be nudged up or down by one level, but only on the basis of on-site inspection outcomes from the two preceding calendar years.

Important points:

Two specific data points — relating to high-risk activity customers and incomplete CDD data — must not be used in the first selection process.
The standard supervisory adjustment of controls quality scores under Article 3 does not apply to the first selection process, but a narrower adjustment of one level up or down remains available based on recent on-site inspection findings.
Any adjustment made to the controls quality score must be duly justified and recorded.

1. The following data points shall not be used for the purposes of the first selection process referred to in Article 13(4) of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1620:
  1. ‘number of customers with high-risk activities’ as listed in Section A of Annex I;
  2. ‘number of customers whose CDD data and information is not yet in line with the requirements of Article 20 AMLR’ as listed in Section B of Annex I.
1. Article 3, paragraph 1, point (c), shall not apply to the assessment of the quality of controls performed for the purposes of the first selection process referred to in Article 13(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1620.
1. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the controls quality score may be adjusted by increasing or decreasing it by one level, based on outcomes of on-site inspections that took place in the two calendar years before the launch of the assessments, where this information is relevant for the classification of the entity’s ML/TF risk profile. Where the risk is increased by one level, the adjusted score shall be set at the minimum value of the corresponding level. Where the risk is decreased by one level, the adjusted score shall be set at the maximum value of that corresponding level.
1. The adjustment applied in accordance with paragraph 3 shall always be duly justified and recorded.