MEPs are still at odds with the EU Commission over its list of third-country jurisdictions deemed insufficient in their anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regimes.
The EU’s ‘blacklist’ hasn’t aligned with that of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)—the global watchdog on money laundering and terrorist financing—for over a year and a half. According to EU Commissioner for Financial Services, Maria Luis Albuquerque, this misalignment has created “significant irritants with international partners”.
“If we are perceived as not respecting the outcomes of the process, this risks undermining our ability in the future to influence technical assessments and secure the commitments we would like to see from other jurisdictions,” argued Albuquerque during a committee meeting in the European Parliament on Monday.
Earlier this month, the Commission updated its list, adding countries such as Algeria, Angola, Kenya, Monaco, and Venezuela. Meanwhile, several jurisdictions—including Barbados, Gibraltar, Panama, and the United Arab Emirates—were removed.
However, this list cannot enter into force without the scrutiny and assent of both the European Parliament and the Council – and the Commission has not yet convinced MEPs to support it.
In a resolution adopted in April 2024, MEPs opposed the Commission’s decision to delist Gibraltar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Panama, citing compelling evidence that these jurisdictions have failed to take sufficient steps to address—or even actively facilitate—the circumvention of sanctions against Russia. These sanctions include targeted financial measures imposed in response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
Parliament has concerns delisted countries may circumvent Russia sanctions
“Those countries may act as platforms for circumvention of sanctions for Union entities, directly or indirectly, thus undermining the Union’s efforts in stopping the Russian war machine,” the resolution stated.
Speaking to a half-empty room at the EU Parliament in Brussels, from which political groups such as Renew Europe, the European Sovereign Nations (ESN) and The Left were absent, Albuquerque argued that their concerns had been addressed and that these jurisdictions had made “tangible progress”.
Those present publicly aired their frustration with the process.
“It doesn’t seem to me that the possibility to engage in dialogue with the European Parliament was utilized to the extent that corresponds to very strong involvement of the Parliament in this matter,” MEP Luděk Niedermayer (European People’s Party/Czechia) said.
The Commissioner herself expressed her concerns about the current impasse. “The fact that countries listed by the FATF are still not listed by the EU exposes the EU’s financial system to vulnerabilities and can create loopholes that need to be addressed,” she said.
The Portuguese Commissioner also pointed out that the absence of an updated European list causes confusion and legal uncertainty for entities that must apply anti-money laundering rules.
“EU operators have to comply with divergent lists which increase their compliance burden, adds additional costs and impacts their global competitiveness,” Albuquerque added.
Yet neither the diplomatic argument over negotiations with the UAE nor the concerns over reputational and economic risks shielded the Commissioner from a combative exchange with MEPs. Among the most vocal critics was German Socialist Birgit Sippel, who accused the Commission of merely replicating FATF assessments.
“I have the impression that more or less the Commission is simply copy-pasting the reports and decisions from the FATF, and to be honest, simply mentioning visits and strategic dialogues are not that much convincing,” Sippel said.
The Commissioner countered that the blacklist was the product of over a year of “intense work”, based not only on FATF findings but also on bilateral dialogues and on-site visits to the third countries concerned.
