Banks of the European Union. Order or Chaos?
In 1993 the European Union was formally established by the Maastricht Treaty, deepening the continent’s economic and political integration. Since then, and especially after the 2008 crisis and the sovereign debt crisis that began in 2010, the EU has built a regulatory web for the banking system with the declared aim of protecting and controlling it. The result, however, is contested: mis‑management, the continual issuance of sovereign debt and unclear migration policies have led to high taxes, increasing banking restrictions and a daily feeling of suffocation among citizens of the Member States.
The prevailing thesis holds that four pillars are needed for the EU’s monetary policy to function: Regulation, Supervision, Resolution and Protection.
The real question is: Why do citizens pay when banks or governments make mistakes, while a citizen who errs must go bankrupt and bear the consequences alone?
And another: How far is privacy curtailed in the name of “security”?
THE CONSTANT EXCUSE
Throughout history, rulers have sought opponents to control their followers: from ancient Rome with the barbarians, through the Middle Ages with witches and the Inquisition, to the revolutions with the “citizens.” Today terrorism fulfills that role. We do not deny its existence or criminal activity – terrorism exists, money‑laundering does as well – but under this justification a virtually total control over all banking movements has been built: from a primary‑school teacher in Frías, Spain, to a housewife’s purchase in Berlin.
The pattern is always the same:
1. A threat appears.
2. A responsible party is identified.
3. Fear is generated.
4. Power presents itself as protector.
5. Extraordinary measures are justified.
6. These measures expand the state’s power.
Meanwhile the core problems remain unresolved:
7. High sovereign debt in several EU countries.
8. Heavy tax burden on taxpayers.
9. Funding of programmes and projects with low transparency.
The Fifth Anti‑Money‑Laundering Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/843, applicable since January 2020) introduced, among other things:
· expanded public access to registers of beneficial owners (the registers themselves had existed since the fourth directive of 2015);
· greater access for financial investigative authorities to information;
· central registers of bank accounts in each Member State;
· controls over providers of crypto‑services (exchanges and custodial wallets);
· intensified scrutiny of states classified as high‑risk;
· stronger cooperation between banking supervisory authorities and AML authorities.
A key point: In November 2022 the European Court of Justice (cases C‑37/20 and C‑601/20) annulled the provision that made the beneficial‑owner registers publicly accessible.
In 2024 the anti‑money‑laundering package deepens the model. The Directive (EU) 2024/1640 (Sixth Directive) obliges Member States to maintain automated central mechanisms that enable identification of owners and controllers for:
· bank accounts;
· payment accounts;
· securities accounts;
· crypto‑asset accounts;
· safe deposit boxes.
These national registers will also be networked across Europe. The general implementation period ends in July 2027, with staggered obligations for later dates. The package is complemented by Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 and the creation of the European Anti‑Money‑Laundering Authority (AMLA) based in Frankfurt.
ECONOMIC MOBILITY
Although the EU actively controls the economic movement of its citizens, the door to foreign capital investment is not closed. The exit tax is a good example: for natural persons there is no uniform EU rule, so its application varies from Member State to Member State (Spain, France and Germany implement it with different thresholds and conditions). For legal persons, however, there is a common obligation: the ATAD Directive (2016/1164) mandates exit taxation of companies.
It is important that the tax is levied not on the capital itself but on the latent gain. With an initial capital of €200,000 and a final value of €1,000,000, the exit tax would be calculated on the €800,000 gain, not on the €1 million total.
The EU preserves the free movement of capital as a principle – enshrined in Article 63 TFEU, which is also the only freedom extended to third‑country nationals – yet every transaction is subject to tax rules, anti‑money‑laundering safeguards, Know‑Your‑Customer requirements, sanctions and other applicable controls.
To what extent can increased financial security coexist with privacy, private property and the freedom of capital movement?
And which path will EU Member States take in handling their citizens’ money?
TOTAL CONTROL?
** **
YOU STILL HAVE TIME.