EU ANTI-CORRUPTION DIRECTIVE: WHY BANKS NOW NEED TO RETHINK THEIR ANTI-FINANCIAL CRIME MANAGEMENT

Bribes are disguised, assets are transferred, front men are used – corporate crime does not conform to regulatory categories. This is precisely where the new EU Anti-Corruption Directive (Directive (EU) 2026/1021) comes in. This article explains what this means in practical terms for banks and financial service providers.

Corruption prevention is being harmonised across Europe: criminal law and sanctions provisions must be implemented by 1 June 2028, whilst regulations on risk analyses and prevention strategies must be in place by 2029. Together with the EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624) and the AMLA, this strengthens the integrated EU framework against financial crime. The common thread: risk-based prevention and significantly greater corporate responsibility.

WHAT IS CHANGING IN PRACTICE

There are three key points compliance officers should be aware of:

1. More criminal offences. Articles 3 to 11 broaden the scope of corruption offences across the EU. The use and concealment of corrupt advantages are also explicitly covered (Articles 9 and 10).
2. Stricter corporate liability. Previously, a company was primarily liable if a senior manager had acted personally. In future, it will suffic that a subordinate bribes on behalf of the company and that senior management has enabled this through inadequate supervision (Article 13). Organisational failure is thus treated on a par with individual misconduct.
3. Severe sanctions – with a way out. Companies face fines of between 3 and 5 per cent of their global annual turnover, or between 24 and 40 million euros, as well as bans on conducting business, dissolution or exclusion from public procurement procedures (Art. 14). The crucial lever for copanies: an effective compliance programme acts as a mitigating factor (Art. 16) – ‘effective’ is the key word here; a mere paper exercise is not sufficient.

WHY THE FINANCIAL SECTOR IS PARTICULARLY AFFECTED

Hardly any other sector is as exposed as the financial sector: close ties to supervisory authorities and central banks, a multitude of distribution partners, intermediaries and other third parties, and a business that is, by its very nature, cross-border. Each of these interfaces is a potential point of entry.

The real problem often lies in the organisation. In many places, corruption prevention still operates as a separate silo alongside money laundering, fraud and sanctions. This separation does not reflect reality. White-collar crime does not think in terms of areas of responsibility: one and the same set of facts – a concealed payment, a front man, a convoluted corporate structure – can simultaneously point to corruption, money laundering, fraud and breaches of sanctions.

THE SOLUTION IS CLOSER THAN MANY REALISE

The good news is that new processes are not necessarily required. Banks usually already have the key tools in place – from risk analyses and governance to whistleblowing schemes, internal investigations, transaction monitoring and due diligence. However, these are often not yet specifically geared towards corruption risks.

This is precisely where the practical challenge lies: corruption risks are often assessed only qualitatively; third parties such as intermediaries or advisers are scrutinised less rigorously; and warning signs such as conflicts of interest or conspicuous remuneration models are too often kept separate from existing anti-financial crime data.

Closing these gaps strengthens prevention whilst simultaneously reducing complexity and duplication of effort. The implementation deadline therefore represents a strategic window of opportunity – for all those who seize it now.

Would you like to align your anti-financial crime framework with the new requirements? Please feel free to contact us – we can support you in analysing existing structures and the integrated further development of your compliance systems.

Martin Seevers
Prof. Dr Christoph Wronka