Financial Intelligence Unit awaits restoration of powers by Riigikogu

A bill aimed at clarifying the Financial Intelligence Unit's (FIU) access to banking data and restoring its ability to conduct on-site inspections has passed its first reading in the Riigikogu.
The final vote could come as early as October. Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise, now the only formally registered presidential candidate, has endorsed the bill and, if it passes and she is elected president, it could end up on her desk for assent or veto.
The bill would address two major restrictions on the FIU: its ability to access bank account information through the enforcement register and its ability to carry out on-site inspections at banks and other institutions.
The legislation follows concerns raised by Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise about the legal basis for government agencies accessing bank account information through the enforcement register. The unit's access was suspended by Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200).
The restrictions also affected the Tax and Customs Board (MTA), which was unable to request certain data through the register for tax-fraud prevention and other duties until the government reversed course in May.
The government has since proposed amendments specifying when and how the FIU and MTA may request banking data through the enforcement register. The Finance Ministry has stressed that the amendments do not create new substantive powers to access banking secrecy, but clarify that existing powers may be exercised through the enforcement register, a secure and logged channel.
Under the proposed framework, requests would have to be justified and logged, while people would have the ability to challenge an administrative act authorising access.
The Estonian-founded LHV Pank, for example, has stopped providing bank account statements to the FIU, saying the unit has no legal right to request them. The Tallinn Administrative Court ruled in the bank's favor, although the FIU has appealed.
FIU chief Matis Mäeker said the restrictions are also affecting Estonia's ability to cooperate with its international partners, and that this is harming Estonia in return.

"If you are a good partner, you get answers more quickly; if you are a worse partner, you get answers more slowly. At the moment, we are in a situation where we cannot answer all questions as we do not have the right to request this data," Mäeker said.
Mäeker gave as an example one case in which fraudulently obtained money was transferred to another country one day, then by the following day had already been moved to accounts at 14 different credit institutions, making recovering the funds increasingly difficult.
The FIU's powers were further restricted by a Supreme Court ruling in January. The body can no longer physically visit, for example, a bank or a gambling company, in order to check compliance with its anti-money-laundering (AML) procedures.
On-site inspections are an "irreplaceable" tool for a supervisory authority, Mäeker added.
"One thing is what happens on paper, another is what happens in real life. To understand whether what is on paper actually corresponds to reality, you can only find out on site," he said.
The bill would address both issues. It would clarify the division and extent of the powers of the FIU and MTA to obtain information needed for their duties, particularly bank account and account data, while also restoring the FIU's ability to conduct on-site inspections.
The opposition parties have signaled support for the bill, though some MPs have questioned its lengthy notification deadlines. Aivar Kokk (Isamaa), a member of the Riigikogu Finance Committee, said he could not understand how it could ever be justified to keep a person unaware for so long that their bank account had been examined. Andrei Korobeinik (Center) warned that notification could potentially be postponed repeatedly.
Under the terms of the bill, a person or company would normally be notified five years after their bank account statement was obtained. In certain circumstances, notification could be postponed for up to another five years — meaning that in some cases, the person or company might not learn about the examination for as long as 10 years.
Maris Lauri (Reform), who is leading work on the bill in the Finance Committee, said she wants to hear further justification from interest groups regarding the time limits. She noted that the current deadlines may be optimal, but discussions are continuing. If consideration proceeds without major obstacles, the Riigikogu could adopt the bill as early as October.

LHV has raised broader privacy and legal concerns about the proposed rules. Ants Soone, LHV's head of compliance, wrote that since 2021 the FIU has no longer been an investigative body and lacks the right to conduct surveillance measures. He argued that treating the examination of bank statements as a surveillance measure could raise questions about whether evidence obtained in this way would be admissible in court.
Soone also objected to the possibility of retaining information covered by bank confidentiality for five to 10 years "just in case," arguing that mass retention of personal data like this could conflict with EU fundamental-rights law.
Madise has also weighed in, saying she did not oppose the bill in principle. She agreed that the FIU and/or the MTA should be able to access bank account statements via the enforcement register when investigating specific suspicions, but said the Riigikogu should carefully consider whether the proposed notification periods are truly necessary or should be shortened.
If the bill passes, it would address concerns Madise raised as Chancellor of Justice. Madise is, at the time of writing, the only formally registered candidate in the presidential elections taking place in the Riigikogu, with a few hours to go until registration closes. If the 74 MPs who signed in favour of her candidacy — or a minimum of 68 MPs — translate that backing into a vote for Madise as president on September 2-3, she will become the next head of state.
If that happened, she would then have the power as president to sign or veto legislation on the same topic herself.
The money laundering bill's final reading may take place in October, as things stand.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Andrew Whyte, Johannes Voltri, Urmet Kook











