On Thursday 5 September, the European Commission presented to the
European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON),  the state of its reflections   on the future European list of third countries with anti  capital with  deficiencies threatening the European financial system (see EUROPE B12193A28).
The opportunity to gauge the first reactions on its revised methodology. The European Commissioner for
Justice, Věra Jourová, could not be present for " personal reasons ", it is Alexandra
Jour-Schröder, Acting Deputy Director-General for Justice Services of the European institution,
who lent themselves to this exercise.
"Our goal is to try to ensure a consensus among all institutions on the process, so
to prevent the EP or the Council from rejecting the list ," she explained, assuring that the new delegated act which
will be presented will be an " autonomous process", as called for by the EP (see EUROPE B12214A6).
As it stands, the new methodology places more emphasis on upstream engagement with countries
third parties in order  to encourage them to set  up an effective regime, before  listing  them.
" As part of this refined methodology, we plan to inform countries and put them in front of
our detailed preliminary assessment of their deficiencies," explained Jour-Schröder, estimating that
this corresponds to the expectations of the Council of the EU.
In a second step, it would be a question of setting up, with third countries that have committed themselves to conducting 
reforms, detailed action plans on how to address the shortcomings identified.
The most cooperative countries could be given a sufficiently long period of time to implement the
 The Commission would follow this process closely and could even carry out <> on-site inspections, while the EP and council would be kept fully informed, she said.
In the event that the country does not implement the measures in time, it will then be blacklisted
of the EU. The same fate would be reserved for countries that refuse to cooperate or those that present "a
preponderant level of risk".
But, once on the list, a third country will not be left to its own devices and the Commission will continue the
dialogue and provide technical assistance, Schröder said.
The Commission should also maintain the approach of recognising that countries listed on the a list drawn up by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) present a high risk to the EU. On the other hand, the
removal of a country from the FATF list will not automatically result in its removal from the EU's 'black' list,
did she warn.
The new approach apparently did not convince Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, German), who asked
why the Commission did not finally adopt an approach based on the 'black' and 'grey' list of
non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (see EUROPE B12295A15).
The MEP also criticised the delays that were far too long for his taste, in particular the one between the analysis of
deficiencies and listing, which could, according to his information, go up to 18 months.

" I ask the Commission to perfect its methodology (...) and not to give in to the pressure of
Member States," he said.
EBA calls for more resources
On Thursday, the President of the European Banking Authority (EBA), José Maria Campa, addressed the
MEPs. If with the reform of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs - EUROPE
B12219A6), the EBA has been given new powers in the fight against money laundering of
Capital, it continues to benefit from limited resources, he explained.
Today, three people work full-time on anti at the headquarters of the authority now based in Paris. With the revision of the ESAs, eight additional people
are expected to strengthen this team over the next two years. But, according to Campa, at least
five additional people would be needed.
More resources is one way to increase the effectiveness of the fight against money laundering
in the EU, which has been plagued by numerous scandals in recent years, according to Campa.
In his view, minimum harmonisation was no longer sufficient and more prescriptive legislation should be moved towards example by legislating through regulations and no longer through directives.
The establishment of a " homogeneous and fully integrated supervisor of national supervisors at
of the EU " would be, according to him, another solution (see EUROPE B12312A8). Because "the EBA is not a supervisor of
supervisors ," he recalled. (Marion Fontana)