Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 42kWORD 19k
17 January 2019
Question for written answer E-000222-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Alfred Sant (S&D)

 Subject:  Follow-up to Written Question E-005066/2018 — Enforcement of anti-money laundering rules in Denmark and Estonia
 Answer in writing 

The Commission questioned the Danish supervisor’s inspections of Danske Bank and sought to determine whether the appropriate sanctions were applied. Letters were exchanged with overseers and the Commission further requested that the European Banking Authority (EBA) investigate whether there had been a breach of EC law.

For Malta, on the other hand, the Commission requested preliminary enquiries that lasted two years, in addition to on-site investigations. It further requested that the Maltese Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) meet and produce additional information. It has also asked the Maltese authorities to take a number of measures that question their methodology, strategy and ability to react, in addition to their inspection processes. Commissioner Jourová has referred to the fight against money laundering in the context of ‘Malta and other countries’ and has repeatedly referred to Malta’s systematic weaknesses.

Between 2007 and 2015, EUR 178 billion was laundered through Danske Bank and more than 15 000 of its accounts were considered suspicious. As for Malta’s Pilatus Bank, Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad, the chairman, funnelled USD 115 million through US banks.

In its answer to E-005066/2018, the Commission states that it is taking the fight against money laundering seriously. It does not appear, however, to be adopting either a consistent or uniform approach for all EU countries. Could the Commission explain why it has not taken the same ‘systematic-weaknesses approach’ with Denmark and Estonia as it has done for Malta?

Last updated: 11 February 2019Legal notice