AMLA Outlines Risk-Based Supervision, FIU Coordination, and Information-Sharing Priorities for Oblig

Key Takeaways

• In a keynote at the Nordic Financial Crime and Sanctions Forum, AMLA Executive Board Member Rikke-Louise Ørum Petersen set out how the authority will build a common European view of risk, improve the use of financial intelligence, and turn those insights into more consistent supervision.
• The speech is not binding, but it signals near-term milestones that compliance teams should plan for: private-sector information-sharing partnerships from July 2027 and AMLA direct supervision from 2028.

Deep Dive

In a keynote at the Nordic Financial Crime and Sanctions Forum, AMLA Executive Board Member Rikke-Louise Ørum Petersen set out how the authority will build a common European view of risk, improve the use of financial intelligence, and turn those insights into more consistent supervision. The speech is not binding, but it signals near-term milestones that compliance teams should plan for: private-sector information-sharing partnerships from July 2027 and AMLA direct supervision from 2028.

Several timelines and requirements were mentioned. AMLA will coordinate its first joint FIU analysis exercise toward the end of 2026, covering cases or patterns that cross jurisdictions. From July 2027, Article 75 of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulation will allow information-sharing partnerships between entities under specified conditions. These will require a defined purpose, appropriate safeguards, and clear responsibility for resulting decisions. AMLA and the European Data Protection Board are developing Joint Guidelines on how these partnerships should operate. AMLA's direct supervision of selected institutions begins in 2028. The speech did not name the institutions or give detailed criteria.

The speech places notable emphasis on the quality of suspicious activity reporting. More reports do not mean better intelligence. Reports should explain why activity is unusual in the context of the customer and the activity, and they should reflect the institution's own knowledge of its customers. Institutions should also expect more feedback loops between FIUs, supervisors, and obliged entities. In addition, the speaker noted that supervision and FIU coordination sit within one authority, so supervisory findings and FIU intelligence will increasingly inform each other. Control weaknesses identified in one firm may therefore feed into wider risk assessments.

Recommended actions:
- Review suspicious activity reporting quality, narrative standards, and feedback-handling processes.
- Assess readiness for Article 75 partnerships, including governance, data protection analysis, purpose limitation, and accountability for decisions.
- Monitor the AMLA and EDPB Joint Guidelines and AMLA's methodologies as they are published.
- For cross-border groups, check that group-wide risk assessments and controls are consistent across jurisdictions, since colleges and supervisors will look for aligned approaches.
- Prepare early for potential direct AMLA supervision, including documentation and governance.
- Evaluate technology risks alongside technology-enabled controls, as the speech highlighted both.

Risk implications: Institutions with weak cross-border consistency, low-quality reporting, or immature data-sharing governance face higher supervisory and regulatory exposure. Conversely, those that align early may benefit from clearer and more predictable expectations. The main uncertainty is that the guidance is high-level, so detailed requirements will depend on forthcoming technical standards and guidelines.

Source: AMLA - Anti-Money Laundering Authority