Greece
This report analyses the implementation of the AEOI Standard in Greece with respect to the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. It assesses both the legal frameworks put in place to implement the AEOI Standard and the effectiveness of the implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice.
The methodology used for the peer reviews and that therefore underpins this report is outlined in Chapter 2.
Overall findings
AEOI legal framework
Greece’s legal framework implementing the AEOI Standard is in place and is consistent with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. This includes Greece’s domestic legislative framework requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1) and its international legal framework to exchange the information with all of Greece’s Interested Appropriate Partners (CR2).
Effectiveness of AEOI in practice
Greece’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is on track with respect to the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference to ensure the effectiveness of the AEOI Standard in practice. This includes ensuring Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1) and exchanging the information in an effective and timely manner (CR2). Greece is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
Overall rating in relation to the effectiveness in practice: On Track
General context
Greece commenced exchanges under the AEOI Standard in 2017.
In order to provide for Reporting Financial Institutions to collect and report the information to be exchanged Greece:
enacted Law 4428/2016, “Ratification of Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information and implementing provisions”;
made reference to Law 4174/2013 “Tax Procedure Code and other provisions”;
issued the following Decisions from the Governor of the Independent Authority for Public Revenue: No. 1130/2017 as amended, No. 1133/2017 as amended and No. 1137/2017 as amended;
issued the Joint Decision No. 1157/2018 of the Governor of the Independent Authority for Public Revenue and the Minister of Finance; and
made reference to Law 4557/2018, “Prevention and suppression of money laundering and terrorist financing (transposition of Directive 2015/849/EU) and other provisions” for the purposes of the identification of Controlling Persons under the AEOI Standard.
Under this framework Reporting Financial Institutions were required to commence the due diligence procedures in relation to New Accounts from 1 January 2016. With respect to Preexisting Accounts, Reporting Financial Institutions were required to complete the due diligence procedures on High Value Individual Accounts by 31 December 2016 and on Lower Value Individual Accounts and Entity Accounts by 31 December 2017.
Following the initial Global Forum peer review, Greece made several amendments to its legislative framework to address issues identified, the last of which was effective from 9 July 2018.
With respect to the exchange of information under the AEOI Standard, Greece:
Is a Party to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and activated the associated CRS Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement in time for exchanges in 2017;
has in place European Directive 2011/16/EU on Administrative Cooperation in the Field of Taxation, as amended by Directive 2014/107/EU; and
has in place European Union agreements with five European third countries.1
Table 1 sets out the number of Financial Institutions in Greece that reported information on Financial Accounts in 2021 as defined in the AEOI Standard (essentially because they maintained Financial Accounts for Account Holders, or that were related to Controlling Persons, resident in a Reportable Jurisdiction). It also sets out the number of Financial Accounts that they reported in 2021. In this regard, it should be noted that Greece requires the reporting of Financial Accounts based on a prescribed list of exchange partners and some accounts may be required to be reported more than once (e.g. jointly held accounts or accounts with multiple related Controlling Persons), which is reflected in the figures below. These figures provide key contextual information to the development and implementation of Greece’s administrative compliance strategy, which is analysed in the subsequent sections of this report.
Table 2 sets out the number of exchange partners to which information was successfully sent by Greece in the past few years (including where the necessary frameworks were in place, containing an obligation on Reporting Financial Institutions to report information, but no relevant Reportable Accounts were identified). These figures provide key contextual information in relation to Greece’s exchanges in practice, which is also analysed in subsequent sections of this report.
In order to provide for the effective implementation of the AEOI Standard, in Greece:
the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (the tax authority) has the responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of the due diligence and reporting obligations by Reporting Financial Institutions and for exchanging the information with Greece’s exchange partners.
technical solutions necessary to receive and validate the information reported by Reporting Financial Institutions were put in place with the development of web application for the submission of CRS information and validation is performed at three stages (at the time of receipt of the report, when uploading it on the database and before submission to the partner jurisdictions); and
the Common Transmission System (CTS), and in the European Union (EU) the Common Communication Network (CCN), are used for the exchange of the information, along with the associated file preparation and encryption requirements.
It should be noted that the review of Greece’s legal frameworks implementing the AEOI Standard concluded with the determination that Greece’s domestic and international legal frameworks are In Place. This has been taken into account when reviewing the effectiveness of Greece’s implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice.
Findings and conclusions on the legal frameworks
The detailed findings and conclusions on the AEOI legal frameworks for Greece are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and sub-requirement (SR), as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Domestic legal framework: Jurisdictions should have a domestic legislative framework in place that requires all Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures in the CRS, and that provides for the effective implementation of the CRS as set out therein.
Greece’s domestic legislative framework is in place and contains all of the key aspects of the CRS and its Commentary requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (SRs 1.1 – 1.3). It also provides for a framework to enforce the requirements (SR 1.4).
SR 1.1 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions consistently with the CRS.
Greece has defined the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions in its domestic legislative framework in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
SR 1.2 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Financial Accounts and Reportable Accounts consistently with the CRS and incorporate the due diligence procedures to identify them.
Greece has defined the scope of the Financial Accounts that are required to be reported in its domestic legislative framework and incorporated the due diligence procedures that must be applied to identify them in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
SR 1.3 Jurisdictions should incorporate the reporting requirements contained in Section I of the CRS into their domestic legislative framework.
Greece has incorporated the reporting requirements in its domestic legislative framework in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
SR 1.4 Jurisdictions should have a legislative framework in place that allows for the enforcement of the requirements of the CRS in practice.
Greece has a legislative framework in place to enforce the requirements in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
CR2 International legal framework: Jurisdictions should have exchange relationships in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners as committed to and that provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the Model CAA.
Greece’s international legal framework to exchange the information is in place, is consistent with the Model CAA and its Commentary and provides for exchange with all of Greece’s Interested Appropriate Partners (i.e. all jurisdictions that are interested in receiving information from Greece and that meet the required standard in relation to confidentiality and data safeguards) (SRs 2.1 – 2.3).
SR 2.1 Jurisdictions should have exchange agreements in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information.
Greece has exchange agreements that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information in effect with all its Interested Appropriate Partners.
SR 2.2 Such an exchange agreement should be put in place without undue delay, following the receipt of an expression of interest from an Interested Appropriate Partner.
Greece put in place its exchange agreements without undue delay.
SR 2.3 Jurisdictions should ensure that the exchange agreements in effect provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Greece’s exchange agreements provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Assessed jurisdiction’s comments on the assessment of its legal frameworks
Greece is satisfied with the overall determination of the legal framework by which the Common Reporting Standard is applied as in place. It is our strong commitment to implement the global standard in compliance with the AEOI Terms of Reference and to follow up with any necessary improvements with a view to enhancing the outcomes of administrative cooperation.
Findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice
The detailed findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice of AEOI for Greece are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and then per sub-requirement (SR) as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions correctly implement the due diligence and reporting procedures, which includes a requirement for jurisdictions to have in place an administrative framework to ensure the effective implementation of the CRS.
Greece’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is on track with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions are correctly conducting the due diligence and reporting procedures and are therefore reporting complete and accurate information. This includes ensuring effectiveness in a domestic context, such as through having an effective administrative compliance framework and related procedures (SR 1.5), and collaborating with exchange partners to ensure effectiveness (SR 1.6). Greece is encouraged to continue its implementation process to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
SR 1.5 Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions identify the Financial Accounts they maintain, identify the Reportable Accounts among those Financial Accounts, as well as their Account Holders, and where relevant Controlling Persons, by correctly conducting the due diligence procedures and collect and report the required information with respect to each Reportable Account. This includes having in place:
an effective administrative compliance framework to ensure the effective implementation of, and compliance with, the CRS. This framework should:
be based on a strategy that facilitates compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions and which is informed by a risk assessment in respect of the effective implementation of the CRS that takes into account relevant information sources (including third party sources);
include procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions correctly apply the definitions of Reporting Financial Institutions and Non-Reporting Financial Institutions;
include procedures to periodically verify Reporting Financial Institutions’ compliance, conducted by authorities that have adequate powers with respect to the reviewed Reporting Financial Institutions, with procedures to access the records they maintain; and
effective procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries do not circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures;
effective enforcement mechanisms to address non-compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions;
strong measures to ensure that valid self-certifications are always obtained for New Accounts;
effective procedures to ensure that each, or each type of, jurisdiction-specific Non-Reporting Financial Institution and Excluded Account continue to present a low risk of being used to evade tax; and
effective procedures to follow up with a Reporting Financial Institution when undocumented accounts are reported in order to establish the reasons why such information is being reported.
In order to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, Greece implemented most of the requirements in accordance with expectations. However, some issues were identified. The key findings were as follows:
Greece has an overarching strategy to ensure compliance with the AEOI Standard based on three pillars: identification of Reportable Financial Institutions; overall monitoring of the compliance by Reportable Financial Institutions; and audit of Reportable Financial Institutions. It includes a risk assessment that takes into account automated and qualitative checks of the data submitted by Reporting Financial Institutions as well as cases of non-compliance with the reporting obligations, the sector profiles and other risk criteria. Greece’s compliance strategy facilitates compliance and incorporates a credible approach to enforcement. Greece intends to keep its compliance strategy and risk assessment under review to ensure its effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
Greece is working effectively to understand its population of Financial Institutions, comparing various relevant information sources with the list of Financial Institutions which submitted information on Financial Accounts or a nil report to the Tax Administration, such as:
the list of Reportable Financial Institutions as annually reported by the Bank of Greece and the Capital Market Commission to the Tax Administration in respect of the Financial Institutions which operate under their supervision;
the Foreign Financial Institution list for FATCA purposes; and
the list of national Business Activity Codes, to identify entities whose activities correlate with the activities of Financial Institutions under the AEOI Standard.
Greece has also taken action to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions are classifying themselves correctly under its domestic rules and are reporting information as required, including through contacting potential Reporting Financial Institutions that did not report information. Greece intends to keep its understanding of its Financial Institution population up to date on a routine basis.
The Greek Tax Administration is responsible for implementing Greece’s compliance strategy. It appears to have the necessary powers and resources to discharge its functions. With respect to resourcing, Greece has assigned the equivalent of three full time staff to monitor and ensure compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions, in the recently established “AML and AEOI” Department in the Directorate of Audits, with support from staff from the "International Administrative Cooperation in the Field of Taxation" and the "Automatic Information Exchange with other Jurisdictions" Departments and auditors from the Audit Centre for Large Enterprises. Greece has therefore indicated that the number of staff engaged with AEOI compliance may change, depending on the results of the compliance strategy and the number of audit cases. The Bank of Greece and the Capital Market Commission also provide support to the Greek Tax Administration, both on a regular and an ad-hoc basis, given the synergies between the compliance requirements for the implementation of the AEOI standard and the verification of the AML obligations that they are responsible for.
Some control and enforcement activities are being conducted to give effect to the compliance plan, focusing at this stage on the main Reporting Financial Institutions in terms of Reportable Accounts. This includes verification activities to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the information reported, whether self-certifications are being collected as required, to follow up on undocumented accounts and ensure that Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries do not circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures. This includes in-depth reviews and the inspection of records held by Reporting Financial Institutions.
Greece has a procedure in place to keep its jurisdiction-specific list of Excluded Accounts under review to ensure they continue to pose a low risk of being used for tax evasion purposes. It is noted that Greece does not have a jurisdiction-specific list of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions for ongoing monitoring.
Table 3 provides a summary of the specific activities undertaken, or that are planned to be undertaken, in relation to each of the key parts of the framework described above.
With respect to the Financial Account information collected and sent by Greece, the presence of the key data points of the Tax Identification Numbers appeared to be in line with most other jurisdictions. However, while the collection and reporting of dates of birth is generally higher across jurisdictions, Greece nevertheless reported a lower rate of collection of dates of birth when compared to other jurisdictions. These are key data points for exchange partners to effectively utilise the information. Information provided by Greece also showed a higher number of undocumented accounts reported by its Reporting Financial Institutions, when compared to other jurisdictions, which should only occur when it is not possible for the Reporting Financial Institutions to identify whether the accounts are held by Reportable Persons. Follow-up discussions confirmed that Greece is aware of this issue, is engaged in compliance activities with the Financial Institution that report undocumented accounts and intends to use the number of undocumented accounts reported in its risk analysis for audit case selection.
Seven exchange partners highlighted issues with respect to the information received, such as low rates of valid Tax Identification Numbers. More generally, many of the exchange partners that received a significant number of records from Greece indicated that they achieved a success rate when matching the information received from Greece with their taxpayer database that was broadly equivalent to, or better than, what they usually achieve.
Based on these findings it was concluded that, overall, Greece is meeting expectations in ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, including by having in place the required administrative compliance framework and related procedures. It was also noted that there is room for improvement with respect to expanding the scope of its compliance and verification activities and addressing the issues raised by its exchange partners. Greece is therefore encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, including by addressing the recommendations made.
Greece should expand the scope of its compliance and verification activities to ensure it covers Reporting Financial Institutions of all sizes and of all types.
Greece should continue its activities to follow up with Reporting Financial Institutions reporting undocumented accounts, including to understand the reason for it and to ensure they are correctly applying the definition.
Greece should address the issues raised by its exchange partners.
SR 1.6 Jurisdictions should collaborate on compliance and enforcement. This requires jurisdictions to:
use all appropriate measures available under the jurisdiction’s domestic law to address errors or non-compliance notified to the jurisdiction by an exchange partner; and
have in place effective procedures to notify an exchange partner of errors that may have led to incomplete or incorrect information reporting or non-compliance with the due diligence or reporting procedures by a Reporting Financial Institution in the jurisdiction of the exchange partner.
In order to collaborate on compliance and enforcement, Greece implemented all of the requirements in relation to issues notified to them (i.e. under Section 4 of the MCAA or equivalent) in accordance with expectations. While no such notifications have yet been received, it appears that Greece has the necessary systems and procedures to process them as required. Greece also plans to notify its partners effectively of errors or suspected non-compliance it identifies when utilising the information received.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Greece is fully meeting expectations in relation to collaborating with its exchange partners to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures. Greece is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
CR2 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should exchange the information effectively in practice, in a timely manner, including by sorting, preparing, validating and transmitting it in accordance with the AEOI Standard.
Greece’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is on track with respect to exchanging the information effectively in practice, including in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information (SR 2.4), correctly transmitting the information in a timely manner (SRs 2.5 – 2.8) and providing corrections, amendments or additions to the information (SR 2.9). Greece is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
SR 2.4 Jurisdictions should sort, prepare and validate the information in accordance with the CRS XML Schema and the associated requirements in the CRS XML Schema User Guide and the File Error and Correction-related validations in the Status Message User Guide (i.e. the 50000 and 80000 range).
Three exchange partners highlighted particular issues with respect to preparation and format of the information sent by Greece (representing 4% of its partners). These generally related to files rejected due to already used “DocRefIDs” or problems with file decryption. More generally, four (or 5%) of Greece’s exchange partners reported rejecting more than 25% of the files received, of which one reported rejecting more than 50% of files received, due to the technical requirements not being met. This is a relatively high amount when compared to other jurisdictions and it has increased over time. It was noted that Greece has already successfully addressed all of the issues.
Based on these findings it was concluded that, overall, Greece is meeting expectations in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information. It was also noted that there is room for improvement in this respect. Greece is therefore encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, including in relation to the area highlighted.
Greece should review its systems and procedures for sorting, preparing and validating the information to send to its exchange partners, to ensure that they meet the requirements of the AEOI Standard.
SR 2.5 Jurisdictions should agree and use, with each exchange partner, transmission methods that meet appropriate minimum standards to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the data throughout the transmission, including its encryption to a minimum secure standard.
In order to put in place an agreed transmission method that meets appropriate minimum standards in confidentiality, integrity of the data and encryption for use with each of its exchange partners, Greece linked to the CTS and the CCN, which is used for exchanges within the EU.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Greece is fully meeting expectations in relation to agreeing and using appropriate transmission methods with each of its partners. Greece is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.6 Jurisdictions should carry out all exchanges annually within nine months of the end of the calendar year to which the information relates.
One exchange partner highlighted delays in the sending of information by Greece. It was noted that Greece successfully addressed all of the issues and sent the information as soon as possible thereafter.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Greece is fully meeting expectations in relation to exchanging information in a timely manner. Greece is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.7 Jurisdictions should send the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards.
Feedback from Greece’s exchange partners did not raise any concerns with respect to Greece’s use of the agreed transmission methods and therefore with Greece’s implementation of this requirement.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Greece is fully meeting expectations in relation to sending the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards. Greece is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.8 Jurisdictions should have the systems in place to receive information and, once it has been received, should send a status message to the sending jurisdictions in accordance with the CRS Status Message XML Schema and the related User Guide.
Four exchange partners highlighted delays in the sending of status messages by Greece, representing 5% of its partners. It was noted that Greece appears to be successfully addressing the issues to ensure that status messages are sent in accordance with the requirements.
Based on these findings it was concluded that, overall, Greece is meeting expectations in relation to the receipt of the information. It was also noted that there is room for improvement with respect to sending status messages to all exchange partners in a timely manner. Greece is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation, including in relation to the area highlighted.
Greece should ensure it sends status messages to all of its exchange partners in a timely manner.
SR 2.9 Jurisdictions should respond to a notification from an exchange partner as referred to in Section 4 of the Model CAA (which may include Status Messages) in accordance with the timelines set out in the Commentary to Section 4 of the Model CAA. In all other cases, jurisdictions should send corrected, amended or additional information received from a Reporting Financial Institution as soon as possible after it has been received.
Greece appears ready to respond to notifications and to provide corrected, amended or additional information in a timely manner and no such concerns were raised by Greece’s exchange partners and therefore with respect to Greece’s implementation of these requirements.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Greece appears to be meeting expectations in relation to responding to notifications from exchange partners and the sending of corrected, amended or additional information. Greece is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
Note
← 1. Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland.