CySEC grants further extension for annual reporting deadlines

Following the letter sent to Cyprus Investment Firms (‘CIFs’) on 18 April 2022, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (‘the CySEC’) informed all CIFs on 25 May 2022 (today) that it has extended the deadline for all the annual reporting obligations mentioned in the announcement by 1 month further. Please see below the new extensions:

  1. Submission of Suitability Report (new deadline 30 June 2022)
  2. Submission of Audited Financial Statements (new deadline 30 June 2022)
  3. Payment of CySEC’s Annual Fees (new deadline 30 June 2022)
  4. Submission of Forms 165-01 and 165-02 based on the results of the Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 31.12.2021 (new deadline 31 July 2022)
  5. The external auditors’ verification report regarding Pillar III disclosures (new deadline 31 July 2022)

Our team of FiveComply experts can assist you in complying and submitting in a proper and timely manner the regulatory reports imposed by the CySEC.

CySEC Circular C504 – ESMA Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID II appropriateness and execution-only requirements (ESMA35-43-3006)

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) has issued Circular C504 informing Regulated Entities (i.e., CIFs and AIFMs) on the publication of Guidelines on certain aspect of the MiFID II appropriateness and execution-only requirements that were issued by European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) on April 14, 2022.

Guideline no. Important requirement Legal Framework
INFORMATION TO CLIENTS ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE APPROPRIATENESS ASSESSMENT AND ABOUT EXECUTION-ONLY
Guideline 1 Firms should, in good time before the provision of non-advised services, inform their clients, by using clear and simple language, about the appropriateness assessment and its purpose which is to enable the firm to act in the client’s best interest. (Article 24(1), 24(4), 24(5), 25(3) and 25(4) of MiFID II)
KNOW YOUR CLIENT AND KNOW YOUR PRODUCT
Guideline 2 – Arrangements necessary to understand clients Firms’ policies and procedures should aim to enable firms to collect all information necessary to conduct the appropriateness assessment in relation to the specific product types offered or demanded (Articles 16(2) and 25(3) of MiFID II and Article 55 of the Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 3 – Extent of information to be collected from clients (proportionality) In determining the extent of the information to be asked about the client’s or potential client’s knowledge and experience, firms should take into account the type and characteristics of the investment products or services to be considered (i.e., the level of complexity and risk of the investment products or services) and the nature of the client (Article 25(3) of MiFID II and Article 55 of the Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 4 – Reliability of client information Firms should take reasonable steps and have appropriate tools to ensure that the information provided by their clients is reliable and consistent, without unduly relying on clients’ self-assessment (Article 25(3) of MiFID II and Article 55(3) of the Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 5 – Relying on up-to-date client information When firms rely on previously collected information on clients’ knowledge and experience, firms should establish procedures defining the frequency of updating such information in order to ensure that the information remains up to date and is accurate and complete for the purpose of the appropriateness assessment (Articles 16(2) and 25(3) of MiFID II and Article 55(3) of the MiFID II Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 6 – Client information for legal entities or groups Firms should have a policy defining on an ex-ante basis how to conduct the appropriateness assessment in situations where a client is a legal person or a group of two or more natural persons or where one or more natural persons are represented by another natural person. Such a policy should be drafted in accordance with the general guideline 6 and supporting guidelines enshrined in ESMA Guidelines on certain aspects of the MiFID II suitability requirements (Articles 16(2) and 25(3) of MiFID II)
Guideline 7 – Arrangements necessary to understand investment products Firms should ensure that policies and procedures are implemented to understand the characteristics, nature, and features of investment products in order to allow them to assess if such products are appropriate to their clients (Articles 16(2) and 25(3) of MiFID II)
MATCHING CLIENTS WITH APPROPRIATE PRODUCTS
Guideline 8 – Arrangements necessary to ensure a consistent appropriateness assessment In order to assess whether an investment service or product envisaged is appropriate for the client, firms should establish policies and procedures to ensure that they consistently take into account:

·         all information obtained about the client’s knowledge and experience necessary to assess whether an investment product is appropriate;

·         all relevant characteristics and risks of the investment products considered in the appropriateness assessment.

Firms should establish policies and procedures enabling them to issue a clear and not misleading warning in case they consider that the investment service or product is not appropriate for the client or potential client

(Articles 16(2) and 25(3) of MiFID II and Articles 21 and 56(1) of the Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 9 – Effectiveness of warnings To ensure its effectiveness, the warning issued by firms in case no or insufficient information is provided by the client on his/her knowledge or experience, or in case the assessment of such information shows that the investment service or product offered or demanded is not appropriate for the client, must be prominent, clear, and not misleading (Article 25(3) of MiFID II and Article 56(2) of the Delegated Regulation)
OTHER RELATED REQUIREMENTS
Guideline 10 – Qualifications of firm staff Staff involved in the appropriateness assessment should understand the role they play in this assessment and have an adequate level of skills, knowledge, and expertise, including sufficient knowledge of the relevant regulatory requirements and procedures in order to discharge their responsibilities. To that end, firms should regularly train their staff (Articles 16(2) and 25(3) of MiFID II and Article 21(1)(d) of the Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 11 – Record-keeping As part of their obligation to maintain records of the appropriateness assessment referred to in Article 56(2) of the MiFID II Delegated Regulation, firms should at least:

·         maintain adequate recording and retention arrangements to ensure orderly and transparent record-keeping regarding the appropriateness assessment, including the collection of information from the client and the non-advised service provided;

·         ensure that record-keeping arrangements are designed to enable the detection of failures regarding the appropriateness assessment;

·         ensure that records kept are accessible for the relevant persons in the firm and for competent authorities;

·         have adequate processes to mitigate any shortcomings or limitations of the record-keeping arrangements.

(Articles 16(6), 16(7), 25(5) and 25(6) of MiFID II and Articles 56(2) and 72 and 76 of the Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 12 – Determining situations where the appropriateness assessment is required Firms should adopt appropriate arrangements to ensure that they are able to determine situations where an appropriateness assessment needs to be performed and avoid performing one in situations where a suitability assessment needs to be performed (Articles 16(2), 25(3) and 25(4) of MiFID II and Article 57 of the Delegated Regulation)
Guideline 13 – Controls Firms should have appropriate monitoring arrangements and controls in place to ensure compliance with the appropriateness requirements (Articles 16(2), the second subparagraph of 16(5) and 25(3) of MiFID II and 76 of the Delegated Regulation)

 

Our dedicated team at FiveComply can assist you in achieving compliance with any CySEC regulatory obligation.

CySEC and ICF grant extension for reporting deadlines

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (‘the CySEC’) on 18 April 2022, has informed the Cyprus Investment Firms (‘CIFs’) that it has extended the deadline of the below-mentioned annual obligations by one month:

  1. Submission of Suitability Report (new deadline 31st May 2022)
  2. Submission of Audited Financial Statements (new deadline 31st May 2022)
  3. Payment of CySEC’s Annual Fees (new deadline 31st May 2022)
  4. Submission of Forms 165-01 and 165-02 based on the results of the Audited Financial Statements for the year ended 31.12.2021 (new deadline 30th June 2022)
  5. The external auditors’ verification report regarding Pillar III disclosures (new deadline 30th June 2022)

In addition, the Cyprus Investors’ Compensation Fund (‘ICF’), informed CIFs that the deadline for submission of the audited statement of eligible funds and financial instruments that would otherwise have been due on 10th May 2022 will be now on 31st May 2022.

Due to the above extension, the invoice in regards to the annual contribution and annual fees will be communicated to CIFs in writing, no later than the 30th of June 2022, and shall be paid by the 30th of August 2022. A discount of 80% will be provided in relation to the ordinary annual contribution, if CIFs pay in full by the 30th of July 2022.

Moreover, as per Paragraph 11(6)(c) of Directive 87-07, members are obliged to submit, between 15th of May and 20th of May of each year, the liquidity buffer confirmation. The deadline to submit this confirmation is extended for one month (i.e., now due on 15th – 20th June 2022).

Our team of FiveComply experts can assist you in complying and submitting in a proper and timely manner the regulatory reports imposed by the CySEC.

Official Suspension of RTS 27 by CySEC

Following the Directive (EU) 2021/338 of 16 February 2021 temporarily suspending the RTS 27 reporting requirements, CySEC has officially proceeded with the suspension of RTS27.

The Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus dated 21st of February 2022, has published the amending Law 9(I)/2022 which is amending the Law 87(I)/2017 to 2021. The said amending Law provides for the suspension of RTS27, until 28 February 2023.

Our dedicated team at FiveComply can assist you in achieving compliance with any CySEC regulatory obligation and other deadlines. Contact us now for any questions you may have!

How can FiveComply assist you in global licensing, compliance and operations?

Our CEO Gabriel Styllas provides his expertise on global licensing, compliance and operations in his interview in the recent edition of GameChangersMagazine below:

New Commission Delegated Regulation on the EU list of high-risk third countries under MLD4

On 21st of February 2022,  the European Commission has published in its official journal (‘OJ’) the revised list of High-Risk Third Countries. The Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/229 (‘the Delegated Regulation’), amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 on the list of high-risk third countries with strategic anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) deficiencies under the Fourth Money Laundering Directive ((EU) 2015/849) (MLD4).

The Delegated Regulation makes the following changes to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675:

  • Burkina Faso, Cayman Islands, Morocco, Senegal, Haiti, the Philippines, South Sudan, Jordan and Mali are added to the list of third countries that are identified as having strategic AML and CTF deficiencies.
  • Ghana, Botswana, Mauritius, the Bahamas and Iraq are removed from the list of countries identified as not having strategic AML and CTF deficiencies. The Bahamas, Botswana, Ghana, Iraq and Mauritius have strengthened the effectiveness of their AML/CFT regime.

Therefore, in the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675, the table under point ‘I. High-risk third countries which have provided a written high-level political commitment to address the identified deficiencies and have developed an action plan with FATF’ is replaced by the following:

No. High-risk third country
1. Afghanistan
2. Barbados
3. Burkina Faso
4. Cambodia
5. Cayman Islands
6. Haiti
7. Jamaica
8. Jordan
9. Mali
10. Morocco
11. Myanmar
12. Nicaragua
13. Pakistan
14. Panama
15. the Philippines
16. Senegal
17. South Sudan
18. Syria
19. Trinidad and Tobago
20. Uganda
21. Vanuatu
22. Yemen
23. Zimbabwe

The Delegated Regulation enters into force twenty (20) days following its publication in the OJ (i.e., 13 March 2022).

You can contact our firm for more information and guidance.

Assessment of the suitability of Board of Directors and key function holders of investment firms

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) has issued Circular C483 on January 18th, 2022, to remind Cyprus Investment Firms (CIFs) of the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) revised joint Guidelines on the assessment of the suitability of members of the management body and key function holders (the ‘Guidelines’).

CySEC has adopted the Guidelines by incorporating them into its supervisory practices and regulatory approach. The Guidelines are applicable from 31 December 2021 and have updated and repealed the previous versions of the other relevant Joint Guidelines.

The amendments in the Guidelines, took into consideration the revised Capital Requirements Directive (CRD V) and the Investment Firms Directive (IFD), in particular with regards to money laundering and financing terrorism risks, gender diversity, as well as, the new legislative framework for investment firms adopted in 2019 by the Investment Firms Regulation (IFR).

The purpose of the Guidelines is to specify the requirements regarding the suitability of the members of the management body, in particular, the notions of sufficient time commitment, honesty, integrity and independence of mind of a member of the management body, adequate collective knowledge, skills and experience of the management body and adequate human and financial resources devoted to the induction and training of such members. They further specify that, the notion of diversity shall be taken into account for the selection of members of the management.

The Guidelines also specify elements regarding the suitability of the heads of internal control functions and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), where they are not part of the management body, including the principle of independence applicable to certain members of the management body in its supervisory function. If a relevant institution’s assessment concludes that a key function holder is not suitable, then the relevant institution should either not appoint the individual or take appropriate measures to ensure the appropriate functioning of this position.

You can contact our firm for more information and guidance.

Mauritius exits the EU List of high-risk Countries

The European Commission via its Commission Delegated Regulation of 07/01/2022, amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675, has deleted the Mauritius from the EU list of high-risk countries. Along with Mauritius, the Bahamas, Botswana, Ghana and Iraq were also removed.

For all the above-mentioned countries, it was concluded that, the strategic deficiencies in their AML/CFT regimes have been rectified, they have strengthened the effectiveness of their AML/CFT regimes and addressed related technical deficiencies to meet the commitments in their action plan regarding the strategic deficiencies that the FATF identified and the additional benchmarks or preliminary concerns set by the EU Commission.

These developments are of paramount importance for Mauritius which can now be considered as a jurisdiction with an enhanced AML/CFT system equivalent to European and international AML standards.

You can contact us now to find out why Mauritius is considered a great choice for establishing your business!

CySEC Circular C478 – National Risk Assessment on ML/TF Risks of Virtual Assets / Virtual Asset Service Providers

CySEC has issued Circular C478 on 21 December 2021, informing Regulated Entities (i.e., CIFs, ASPs, UCITS, AIFMs, AIFs, AIFLNPs, CASPs, etc.) on the result of the National Risk Assessment (‘the NRA’) on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (‘ML/TF’) risks of Virtual Assets (‘VA’) Activities and Virtual Asset Service Providers (‘VASPs’), which was published by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Cyprus.

The NRA Report focuses on the ML/TF risks imposed by VA and VASPs, by identifying and assessing the risks that may arise through the use of these new technologies. In addition, it includes recommendations and other appropriate measures in order to manage and mitigate those risks, as required by the relevant FATF’s Recommendations.

CySEC considers the NRA Report to be of assistance to the Regulated Entities engaging or seeking to engage in VA activities, in understanding their AML/CFT risks and obligations and how they can effectively comply with these obligations. Therefore, CySEC expects that all Regulated Entities study the Report in depth, as its contents should be taken into account when assessing AML/CFT risks, thereby, improving the effectiveness of the measures and procedures applied.

CySEC has already commenced the implementation of measures/actions in order to address the identified risks by issuing:

  1. the Policy Statement PS-01-2021 (available here) to outline its approach on the registration and operations CASPs under the AML/CFT Law,
  2. the CySEC Directive for registration of CASPs (available here), and
  3. the Circular C476 (available here) relating to the FATF’s Guidance on Risk-based Approach for VA and VASPs.

Lastly, CySEC is in the process of amending its Directive for the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, to accommodate the FATF Recommendation regarding virtual asset transfers.

Our team shall keep you updated on future updates!

In case you have any queries that you would like to discuss, feel free to contact us.

 

ESMA has updated the Q&As on application of the AIFMD in December 2021

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has updated its Question and Answers (available here), relating to the application of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), Directive 2011/61/EU.

ESMA added a new question under Section XI of the Q&As which clarifies whether managers of undertakings investing in crypto assets are or not subject to the AIFMD. According to ESMA, this should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, while market participants and national competent authorities (NCAs) should pay attention to the guidance provided in the ESMA Guidelines on key concepts of the AIFMD.

In particular, collective investment undertakings raising capital from a number of investors to invest in crypto assets in accordance with a defined investment policy for the benefit of those investors
will qualify as ‘AIF’ in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of the AIFMD.

As the AIFMD does not provide a list of eligible or non-eligible assets, AIFs may in principle invest in any traditional or alternative assets, as long as, the AIFM can ensure compliance with the AIFMD. However, more specific investment and risk diversification requirements for AIFs investing in crypto assets, as well as, limitations regarding the target investors of such AIFs may exist at national level.

Lastly, ESMA via its updated Q&As reminded market participants and investors of the high risks involved in investments in crypto-assets (relevant is also the joint ESMA, EBA and EIOPA warning dated February 2018 (accessible here).

In case you have any queries that you would like to discuss, feel free to contact us.