|
Summary of actions reported |
Monaco has strengthened its anti-money laundering framework through several amendments made between 2018 and 2024. Among these changes, Monaco created a register of beneficial owners in 2018 and introduced a two-year deadline for all partnerships, as well as other entities and legal arrangements to comply with the obligations to identify their beneficial owners, keep records at their registered office and report the information to the centralised register. As of October 2025, 97.9% of legal entities had complied with their obligation to report their information to the centralised register.
Monaco also introduced the obligation of all legal entities to collect accurate and adequate information to enable the identification of their beneficial owners, including sufficient information to uniquely identify them, as well as documents supporting their identification as beneficial owners. The legal framework provides for the obligation to keep this information up to date and the obligation for beneficial owners to report any changes to the legal entity and to provide any information requested from them. Penalties apply for non-compliance with these obligations. In addition, the legal framework provides for the obligation for all companies and partnerships to appoint a beneficial ownership information officer. This officer must be an individual resident in Monaco, chosen from among the partners, shareholders, staff, directors, members or their representatives; or, failing that, a professional subject to AML obligations. The designated person is responsible for updating the information and, as such, is liable to penalties in the event of failure to do so.
In addition, Monaco has introduced an obligation for companies and trading partnerships established in Monaco to hold an account with a Monegasque credit institution to carry out their business activity. Non-trading partnerships (i.e. société civile immobilière and société civile de moyens) are also required to have an ongoing business relationship with an AML-obliged person given that when a non-trading partnership does not have a bank account in Monaco it must appoint an AML-obliged person as its beneficial ownership information officer.
As part of their customer due diligence obligations, AML-obliged persons (including banks) must identify the beneficial owners of their customers and update this information in the event of any changes, suspicions, and on a regular basis. AML-obliged persons must therefore monitor their customers on an ongoing basis to ensure that information is regularly updated in line with the level of risk. The regulatory body has published guidelines on this matter. As a reference, they recommend that, in addition of any other triggering event, information should be updated every three years for low-risk clients, every two years for medium-risk clients and annually for high-risk clients. The guidelines also emphasise the need to set these timeframes in internal procedures and to document the periodic review of documents appropriately. These internal procedures must be communicated to the Monegasque authorities. The authorities keep a register of the time limits set out in the procedures of each obliged person and have confirmed that all banks have appropriate frequencies for each type of risk, generally between 1 and 2 years for high-risk clients, 2 to 4 years for medium-risk clients and 5 years for low-risk clients. Where the authorities have identified that the specified frequency is too long or cases of non-compliance with the frequencies set out in the procedures, penalties have been imposed for failure to comply with the ongoing CDD obligation.
In addition, the legal framework requires AML-obliged persons to obtain an extract from the centralised beneficial ownership register (paying the access fee) before entering into a business relationship with a customer, as well as to report any discrepancies between the information contained therein and the data they have collected. In addition to this initial consultation obligation, AML-obliged persons may request an extract at a later date and must also report any discrepancies.
Non-compliance with the beneficial ownership obligations can lead to sanctions. The entity is subject to an administrative fine ranging from EUR 5 000 to EUR 100 000, revocation of operating licences and the striking off of the entities. In addition, the individual appointed as beneficial ownership information officer, the entity itself, the liquidator, or the AML-obliged person concerned are subject to a criminal fine ranging from EUR 18 000 to EUR 450 000 and/or imprisonment, depending on the type of offence and the person responsible for it
The tax authorities have access to the centralised beneficial ownership register, including for the purpose of responding to requests for exchange of information through a request to the authorities responsible for managing the register.
Monaco presented statistics on the results of measures taken to implement the beneficial ownership register and ensure its supervision, including the implementation of programmes to check the quality of the information provided, measures to ensure that the information is accurate, adequate and up to date, as well as the system for reporting discrepancies and the application of penalties for non-compliance. The authorities carry out systematic checks on the information at the time it is provided (ex-ante checks) as well as ex post checks, including a detailed examination of supporting documents to verify their accuracy and consistency. |
|
Conclusion |
Monaco has taken comprehensive actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. All partnerships are now required to have an ongoing business relationship with an AML-obliged person and thus their beneficial ownership information is available from the AML-obliged person as part of the customer due diligence obligations. In addition, with the introduction of the centralised beneficial ownership register, partnerships are now required to identify and retain information on their beneficial owners and declare it to the centralised register. The shortcomings identified in 2018 have therefore now been corrected.
The new legal framework covers the availability of beneficial ownership information on all relevant legal entities and arrangements, and contains provisions ensuring that adequate, accurate and up-to-date information is available in line with the standard. The definition and methodology for identifying beneficial owners is in line the standard. The legal framework provides for the obligation to collect sufficient information to ensure the identification of beneficial owners and to retain this information for ten years. In addition, legal entities are required to keep information on their beneficial owners up to date and to notify the centralised register of any changes within 30 days from the date on which they become aware of the change. Furthermore, although there is no obligation to confirm the accuracy of the information with the centralised register at specified intervals (e.g. on an annual basis), the legal framework nevertheless includes elements that enable legal entities to remain informed of changes in their beneficial ownership. First, within 30 days of the change, beneficial owners must report the changes to the entity and provide the supporting identification documentation. Second, every legal entity must appoint a beneficial ownership information officer, who must be an individual residing in Monaco (either an individual chosen from among its partners, shareholders, staff, managers (or their members or representatives); or a professional subject to customer due diligence obligations from the list provided for in the law, depending on the case). This beneficial ownership information officer is personally responsible for ensuring that the information in the register is always up to date. In all cases, penalties apply in the event of non-compliance.
In addition, the discrepancy reporting system requires AML-obliged persons to obtain an extract from the beneficial ownership register before entering into a business relationship with their customers and to report any discrepancies. The legal framework also allows them to subsequently request an extract from the centralised register, as part of their ongoing CDD obligations, and requires them to inform the authorities of any discrepancies with the information they have collected in accordance with their customer due diligence obligations. These obligations, combined with the obligation to keep up-to-date information on their customers' beneficial owners, strengthen the system for ensuring that information is accurate, adequate and up to date, given that all legal entities are required to have a bank account in Monaco and banks are subject to an ongoing CDD obligation regarding their customers. This obligation includes updating information on beneficial owners in the event of changes or suspicions, as well as at appropriate intervals depending on the risk posed by the client. Although the legal framework does not set the specified frequency, the supervisory authority has provided indicative frequencies of what it considers appropriate, and each bank must notify the supervisory authority of the frequencies set out in its internal procedures. The supervisory authority oversees that banks comply with their obligation to update information on their customers' beneficial owners and has already penalised cases where frequencies were too low or where updates not carried out as per the frequency specified in the internal procedures.
The legal framework provides for penalties in the event of non-compliance with beneficial ownership obligations. Finally, the tax authorities have access to information from the centralised register of beneficial owners.
With regard to the practical implementation of the new legal framework, Monaco provided detailed information on the monitoring carried out and the results of the control measures taken. This information shows that the centralised register is largely complete (97.9%), that entities regularly report changes to the register and that the authorities also receive reports on discrepancies that have enabled the information to be updated for various reasons (minor corrections, such as typographical errors, and more significant corrections concerning the identification of beneficial owners and the type of control exercised). The information provided also shows good implementation of control processes and the application of penalties for non-compliance, as well as a general improvement in compliance behaviour of legal entities, which the authorities attribute to the awareness campaigns carried out and the active supervision and monitoring actions continuously carried out to ensure the availability of adequate, accurate and up‑to‑date beneficial ownership information (e.g. systematic back- and front-office compliance checks, periodic controls and thematic compliance reviews). |