Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing

03-11-2016

This initial appraisal concludes that, while this impact assessment is generally based on useful information and data, the fact that it was apparently prepared under severe time constraints has affected the overall quality of the analysis, which as a result does not entirely meet the quality standards set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines. The structure of the IA itself, organised in two parts, but amending one piece of legislation, does not provide a fully coherent picture of the issues at stake and does not necessarily facilitate the co-legislators' understanding of the reasoning. Quality weaknesses appear to apply particularly to the second part of the IA, which was added as a direct consequence of the Panama Papers revelations. The problems in this case are not clearly defined, the analysis and research are rather weak and the economic and social impacts are largely unaddressed. Moreover, the reader often has to make assumptions and deductions in order to try to understand the content of the IA. The first part of the IA, on the other hand, provides some useful information and evidence, with a better problem definition, incorporating the views of stakeholders. Some weaknesses concern the definition of the options and some of the conclusions drawn, where additional elements might have been useful.

This initial appraisal concludes that, while this impact assessment is generally based on useful information and data, the fact that it was apparently prepared under severe time constraints has affected the overall quality of the analysis, which as a result does not entirely meet the quality standards set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines. The structure of the IA itself, organised in two parts, but amending one piece of legislation, does not provide a fully coherent picture of the issues at stake and does not necessarily facilitate the co-legislators' understanding of the reasoning. Quality weaknesses appear to apply particularly to the second part of the IA, which was added as a direct consequence of the Panama Papers revelations. The problems in this case are not clearly defined, the analysis and research are rather weak and the economic and social impacts are largely unaddressed. Moreover, the reader often has to make assumptions and deductions in order to try to understand the content of the IA. The first part of the IA, on the other hand, provides some useful information and evidence, with a better problem definition, incorporating the views of stakeholders. Some weaknesses concern the definition of the options and some of the conclusions drawn, where additional elements might have been useful.