On 12 May FINMA opened the consultation on the partial revision of the Anti-Money-Laundering Ordinance-FINMA (GwV-FINMA, SR 955.033.0). It closes on 9 June — barely four weeks. The explanatory report states that the partial revision introduces “no new obligations” but rather codifies existing supervisory practice — an assessment shared by external analyses. For AML compliance functions, the case for action is clear nonetheless: what has until now rested on supervisory discretion will, from the entry into force planned for 1 January 2027, become binding regulatory text — and the wording can only be shaped before 9 June.

Two amendments tighten what a financial intermediary must know about its counterparty. Proposed Art. 9b nGwV-FINMA requires the intermediary to be able to map the counterparty’s ownership and control structure. The FATF mutual evaluation report on Switzerland (June 2023) had criticised the fact that while Arts. 9a and 13(2)(h) GwV-FINMA already addressed shell companies and complex structures, an explicit rule for the ownership structure of all legal entity types was missing. FINMA had long demanded this through its supervisory practice; it now appears in the text. In parallel, new Art. 65(2)(d) makes clear that a declaration of the beneficial owner under Art. 4 GwG must always be obtained for sub-accounts held for individual clients.

Art. 30 nGwV-FINMA has broader reach: it creates a verifiable screening obligation for all business relationships that are relevant under sanctions law, while Art. 9b closes a documentation gap in ownership-structure identification. Art. 30 follows Arts. 8 and 1 of the revised GwG, which require organisational measures to prevent violations of the Embargo Act (EmbG, SR 946.231). The Federal Council dispatch of 23 November 2022 on the revised GwG (BBl 2022 2918) specifies a risk analysis, internal guidelines and — depending on size and activity — IT-supported sanctions screening of business relationships and transactions. The same direction is visible in correspondent banking: Art. 37(3) drops the phrase “depending on the circumstances”, and new Art. 37(5) permits payments through pass-through accounts only where the contracting party can supply the necessary client data on request. The obligation is not new — what is new is that an examiner can now anchor it to a specific provision.

The tight deadline is not accidental. According to the explanatory report, FINMA relies on Art. 11(1)(b) FINMAV (SR 956.11) to justify the shortened period and dispensed with the usual pre-consultation. The reason: Switzerland’s FATF country review is expected between May and July 2027, and only measures in force by the end of the on-site examination will be taken into account. For legal and compliance departments this means a narrow window: check the amended articles against existing controls now, and where the wording overreaches, file a written submission by 9 June — for example on the open-ended “to be able to map” in Art. 9b, or on the scope of screening required of smaller institutions under Art. 30.

FINMA’s board of directors weighs the submissions and records in its outcome report which it has adopted — that report and the final text of the GwV-FINMA will show which objections ultimately changed the wording. Anyone who wants a say before the planned entry into force on 1 January 2027 has until 9 June to act.