The ITS on the suspicious transaction report: prepare your data now
AMLA is consulting on the implementing technical standard that fixes the template for reporting suspicious transactions to FIUs. What the template will ask for and how to get your data ready.
Este artículo aún no está disponible en este idioma; se muestra el original en inglés. La traducción llega automáticamente.
Article 69 of the AMLR obliges every obliged entity to report to the FIU when it knows, suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that funds are linked to money laundering or terrorist financing. The AMLR also mandates an Implementing Technical Standard that fixes the format of that report across the Union. AMLA's consultation on the ITS is open; the dashboard shows the closing date.
Why one template matters
Today every FIU has its own form and its own data expectations. A group active in six Member States maintains six reporting processes. The ITS replaces them with one structure: the reporting entity, the subject persons and entities, the transactions with their attributes, the reasons for suspicion, and attachments. FIUs keep their own systems, but the data they receive becomes comparable, which is the precondition for the cross-border analysis that AMLA and the FIU network are meant to deliver.
What the template will ask for
The consultation draft is built around structured fields rather than narrative. Expect:
- Identifiers for natural and legal persons in the form the AMLR itself prescribes for customer due diligence: names, dates and places of birth, nationalities, identification numbers, addresses, and for legal entities the registration number and legal form.
- Beneficial owners of the entities involved, with the nature of ownership or control.
- Transaction attributes: dates, amounts, currencies, accounts, counterparties, payment channels, crypto-asset addresses where relevant.
- A structured indication of the typology and the grounds for suspicion, next to a free-text narrative.
- The status of the business relationship and any action taken.
Where the data usually is not ready
Most institutions can produce a narrative and a transaction list. The gaps sit in structured identifiers: a beneficial owner recorded as a name without a date of birth, a counterparty stored as free text, a crypto address kept in a comment field. The template turns those gaps into missing mandatory fields.
What to do now
- Run a dry run: take five recent reports and map every element to the draft template. Count the fields you cannot fill from systems.
- Fix the customer data model first; the CDD RTS asks for the same identifiers, so one remediation serves two obligations.
- Check your transaction-monitoring case tool: can it export the structured elements, or only a PDF?
- Respond to the consultation if the template asks for something your sector cannot supply; that is the moment to say so.
The dashboard tracks the ITS from consultation to adoption; the workspace lets you record the readiness of the FIU-reporting block with an owner and a target date.