Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2026 Update (June)

Determinations

i.p.

i.p.

i.p.

i.p.b

i.p.

i.p.b

i.p.

i.p.

i.p.

n.a.

LC

Ratings

LC

C

C

LC

C

LC

C

C

C

C

Recommendation (A.1, practice)

It is recommended that Austria monitors the implementation of the Beneficial Ownership Register in practice.

Underlying factor

Although Austria’s AML/CFT framework has a broad coverage, legal entities and arrangements are not required to engage an AML-obligated person who would identify and verify their beneficial ownership information in all cases and during their entire lifetime. These gaps are addressed by the Beneficial Ownership Register, which is designed with robust obligations for legal entities and AML-obliged persons and effective penalties. However, its efficiency in practice could not be assessed as it is only fully effective with effect from 1 June 2018.

(see paragraphs 72 to 80, 83 to 85 and 120 to 121. of the Austria’s 2018 Report for more information)

Summary of actions reported

As at 25 June 2025, the beneficial ownership report submission rate was 98.5%. The Registry Authority has issued comprehensive technical guidance as well as a document with examples. It can be contacted for clarifications, either by e-mail or through a hotline.

All beneficial ownership reports are assigned a risk level that indicates the likelihood that the information reported may not be accurate. The Registry Authority monitors the quality of the beneficial ownership reports through off-site inspections. In 2020, the Beneficial Ownership Register was expanded into a central platform for storing documents used to identify and verify beneficial owners (compliance packages). Compliance packages are also subject to off-site inspections. Cases for off-site inspections are picked through an automated system in monthly intervals. Depending on the findings of inspections, several follow-up measures may be applied by the Registry Authority. These may range from requests to correct the information to, in case of suspected money laundering, submission of suspicious transaction reports to the Financial Intelligence Unit.

In addition, the Beneficial Ownership Register is interconnected with other public registers (e.g. Register of Companies, Central Register of Residents), which allows to automatically and continuously reconcile data and facilitates timely identification of changes to the beneficial ownership information.

Austria requires to report beneficial ownership information within four weeks of registration of the entity or certain events for legal arrangements (e.g. place of administration of a trust in Austria) or change of beneficial owner. Information on beneficial owners must be verified on an annual basis and any changes reported to the register. Failures to timely report beneficial ownership information are subject to incremental penalties. In case of repeated failure to comply with the reporting obligations, the Registry Authority may refer such cases to the Penal Fiscal Authority, which may apply penalties of up to EUR 200 000.

Both the authorities having access to the register and the AML-obliged persons are required to submit discrepancy reports. If reports are not resolved within six weeks, the Registry Authority follows-up with entities which received discrepancy reports.

The Registry Authority can exchange data with other authorities for the purposes of prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing. It can also carry out audits on behalf of foreign authorities in charge of beneficial ownership registers. Austria uses information from the Beneficial Ownership Register for analytical purposes, such as identification of potential front companies and entities that could be used for circumvention of sanctions obligations.

Conclusion

Austria appears to have taken appropriate actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. The beneficial ownership report submission rate was almost 99% and the Beneficial Ownership Register was operationalised to an appropriate level. The Registry Authority has implemented measures to check the quality of the beneficial ownership reports and documents used to determine beneficial owners. The penalties regime is proportionate and dissuasive. The monitoring framework is subject to ongoing reviews to address new threats and risks identified either by the Registry Authority or other authorities.

Status determined

Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation

Actions required

No immediate action required

Recommendation (B.1, framework)

Austria should continue to further amend its EOI network to bring it to the standard with all relevant partners.

Underlying factor

Restrictions on access to bank information provided for by Austria’s domestic legislation are still applicable in respect of 14 out of Austria’s 144 EOI relationships. (see paragraphs 242 to 253 and 261 to 263 of the Austria’s 2018 Report for more information)

Summary of actions reported

Since the last peer review, the Multilateral Convention came into force in 3 out of the 14 partner jurisdictions (Mongolia, Thailand and Viet Nam) and therefore the EOI relationships with them are aligned with the standard. Algeria has signed, but not yet ratified the Multilateral Convention. Once the Multilateral Convention is in force in Algeria, this EOI relationship will also be aligned with the standard.

Austria is in the process of negotiating EOI instruments with Egypt, Libya, the United States and Uzbekistan.

No or limited progress was made with the other six jurisdictions for various reasons.

Conclusion

Austria has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.

Status determined

In the process of being addressed

Actions required

In its next self-assessment, Austria should report further progress with the alignment of its EOI network with the standard.

Recommendation (B.1, practice)

Austria should monitor access to information held by professionals who can claim legal professional privilege so that the requested information can be obtained in line with the standard.

Underlying factor

Although there are sufficient general access powers available to the tax authority which seem to allow access to information held by legal professionals, the interaction of these powers with professional secrecy of lawyers and notaries has not been tested in practice. This concern is strengthened by the fact that the representatives of the lawyers did not clearly indicate that they would in practice be in position to provide information to the tax authority when requested. (see paragraphs 264 et seq. of the Austria’s 2018 Report for more information)

Summary of actions reported

The Austrian Ministry of Finance and the Austrian EOI Unit have not encountered any cases, where the exchange of information had to be declined due to professional secrecy. Austria will continue monitoring this matter and take necessary actions in case issues arise.

Conclusion

Since the adoption of the 2018 Report, Austria has not identified any case where legal professional privilege has prevented access to information. Austria is no longer required to report on this recommendation in future monitoring cycles in application of paragraph 61 of the Enhanced Monitoring Methodology.

Status determined

No longer sufficiently material

Actions required

No immediate action required

Recommendation (C.1, framework)

Austria should continue to further amend its EOI network to bring it to the standard with all relevant partners.

Underlying factor

Restrictions on access to bank information provided for by Austria’s domestic legislation are still applicable in respect of 14 out of Austria’s 144 EOI relationships. In addition, six of these deficient EOI relationships and four additional EOI relationships also limit EOI to the application of the treaty or require providing the name and address of the holder of the information in Austria. (see paragraphs 291 to 295 and 304 to 306. of the Austria’s 2018 Report for more information)

Summary of actions reported

In respect to EOI relationships with restrictions on access to banking information, see summary of actions reported under Recommendation 2 above.

The additional four EOI relationships are now aligned with the standard. The Multilateral Convention has entered into force in Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia and Qatar, and the treaty with Tajikistan was amended by the protocol which has entered into force on 26 May 2021.

Conclusion

Austria has made progress to address recommendation. It should report further progress in its next self-assessment.

Status determined

In the process of being addressed

Actions required

In its next self-assessment, Austria should report further progress with the alignment of its EOI network with the standard.

Recommendation (C.5, practice)

Austria should ensure that it provides status updates in all cases where it takes over 90 days to provide the reply.

Underlying factor

Although under the review period Austria provided timely replies in 80% of cases within 90 days it only provided status updates in 28% of cases where it took longer to reply.

(see paragraphs 355 and 365 of the Austria’s 2018 Report for more information)

Summary of actions reported

Due to the retirement of several key staff members and departures of staff for other reasons, new staff members had to be recruited and trained. This has affected the ability to provide status updates in all cases where it took longer than 90 days to reply. However, status updates were provided in 53% of cases during the monitoring period. The headcount of experts dealing with EOIR, cooperation on value added tax and recovery of tax has increased by eight persons if compared to the peer review period.

Further, the Austrian Exchange of Information Unit was consolidated with the International Legal Assistance and Eurofisc/Anti Money Laundering Teams into the Central Office for International Cooperation, with an objective to concentrate all staff dealing with international exchange of information and thereby facilitate cooperation.

Conclusion

The proportion of required status updates that were sent improved, from 28% during the review period covered by the 2018 report to 53% during the monitoring period 2023-2024. During the monitoring period, the Austrian EOI Unit faced staffing issues which caused for not providing status updates in all cases where requests could not be replied in 90 days. Additional members of staff have been recruited and trained. Austria should report further progress in its next self-assessment.

Status determined

In the process of being addressed

Actions required

In its next self-assessment, Austria should Report progress on providing status updates in all cases where it takes more than 90 days to provide the reply.