CSSF, the Luxembourg Regulator, Fines Rakuten Europe Bank for AML Failures

cssf rakuten fine transaction monitoring regulatory sanction

This image is AI-generated.

The Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) has officially imposed a fine of €185,000 on Rakuten Europe Bank S.A. for significant failures in its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing protocols. This administrative sanction was formally decided on May 19, 2025, and subsequently published on the regulator’s website early in 2026. The penalty reflects roughly one percent of the total annual turnover reported by the institution at the conclusion of the 2022 fiscal year. Regulatory officials conducted an extensive on-site inspection spanning from February to November 2023 to evaluate the robustness of the internal control environment. The findings highlighted persistent deficiencies in transaction monitoring and alert management that remained unresolved for several years despite previous warnings from other national competent authorities within the European Union.

Transaction Monitoring System

The inspection conducted by the Luxembourg supervisor revealed that the institution lacked an effective transaction monitoring system to detect illicit financial flows across its digital infrastructure. Auditors found that the scenarios programmed into the monitoring software were fundamentally outdated and failed to encompass the full scope of customer transactions processed through the bank. Technical capabilities had eroded significantly due to the departure of key personnel within the information technology and compliance departments during a critical restructuring period. These staff exits left the bank unable to properly configure or update the detection parameters necessary to identify suspicious activity in real time. Furthermore, the bank continued to rely on a specific version of its monitoring software that was no longer maintained or supported by the external vendor, creating a vulnerability. Such technical obsolescence created a critical gap in the ability of the firm to maintain oversight of its financial operations and protect the integrity of the Luxembourg financial sector. These specific weaknesses had been previously identified by another European national authority as early as 2019, yet the bank failed to implement the necessary corrective measures over the subsequent four-year period. This lack of responsiveness allowed systemic risks to persist within the organization despite direct feedback regarding its technical inadequacy. The regulator emphasized that a financial institution of this scale must prioritize the maintenance of its core compliance technology to prevent the facilitation of criminal movements of capital.

Sanctions Screening and Alert Management

Significant delays in the processing of automated alerts were a primary factor in the regulatory action taken against the financial entity during the recent review cycle. The investigation discovered that approximately nine percent of all generated alerts were not closed or reviewed until more than two months after their initial creation by the automated tools. This backlog included thousands of screening alerts directly related to international sanctions, politically exposed persons, and potential links to terrorism that required immediate human intervention. Failure to review these indicators in a timely manner prevented the bank from applying required restrictive measures without delay, which is a core requirement under Luxembourg law. The regulator noted that the bank also failed to submit several suspicious activity reports to the Financial Intelligence Unit within the legally mandated timeframes, even after potential money laundering indicators were identified. In one particularly severe instance, the bank failed to file a report entirely for a customer who had previously been subject to asset freezes in France due to terrorism associations and specific criminal investigations. These procedural lapses demonstrated a failure to prioritize high-risk indicators that could signal criminal exploitation of the banking platform for the purpose of financing global instability. The inability to manage the volume of alerts suggested that the compliance department was under-resourced or lacked the necessary oversight to handle the operational reality of the business model.

Customer Due Diligence and Risk Assessment

Weaknesses in the application of simplified due diligence measures further compounded the regulatory exposure of the Luxembourg bank and invited further scrutiny into its client onboarding. The onsite team found that the bank did not have functioning automated controls to ensure that customers only benefited from simplified measures when specific legal thresholds were met. In several cases, the institution continued to apply reduced scrutiny even after the profiles of the clients no longer justified such a low-risk classification due to changes in their business activity. Risk assessment methodologies were also found to be deficient because they did not adequately account for the country of residence of beneficial owners in the final risk scoring. This omission meant that the bank could not accurately calculate the geographic risk associated with its client base, leading to potentially misclassified high-risk accounts. Furthermore, the bank failed to conduct sufficient investigations into red flags involving merchants who presented documents that were inconsistent with the types of products they claimed to sell online. By neglecting to resolve these discrepancies through enhanced scrutiny, the bank remained vulnerable to facilitating transactions involving counterfeit goods and other predicate offenses that generate illicit revenue. Effective customer due diligence requires a dynamic approach where the institution continuously validates the information provided by the client against the actual behavior observed in the account. The regulator found that the bank often relied on static or incomplete data, which prevented it from seeing the full picture of the risks inherent in its merchant portfolio.

Compliance Remediation and Regulatory Response

In determining the final amount of the administrative fine, the regulator considered the gravity and the prolonged duration of the identified breaches across several years of operation. The persistent nature of the technical failures in the transaction monitoring system was viewed as an aggravating factor, given the prior warnings received by the institution from other European regulators. However, the supervisory authority also acknowledged that the bank has since recognized its internal shortcomings and has submitted a comprehensive action plan to rectify the gaps. The bank began the implementation of these corrective measures during the inspection process and continued to update its compliance framework throughout the following months to satisfy the regulator. This remediation strategy includes the total replacement of the legacy monitoring tool and the strengthening of the second line of defense to ensure better oversight of delegated compliance tasks. The bank has also increased its headcount in the compliance and IT departments to prevent a recurrence of the technical debt that led to the system failures. While the fine serves as a punitive measure for past negligence, the ongoing supervision will focus on whether these new controls can effectively mitigate the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing in the future. The CSSF remains committed to ensuring that all participants in the financial center adhere to the highest standards of vigilance to maintain the reputation of Luxembourg as a secure jurisdiction. Future non-compliance could lead to more severe sanctions, including higher financial penalties or restrictions on the banking license itself if systemic issues are not resolved.

Key Points

Luxembourg financial regulator CSSF fined Rakuten Europe Bank €185,000 for multiple breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regulations.
The fine was based on an inspection that found an outdated transaction monitoring system and a failure to address issues first identified in 2019.
The bank experienced significant delays in reviewing thousands of alerts related to sanctions and terrorism while failing to report suspicious activities promptly.
Systemic weaknesses were identified in customer risk assessments and the improper application of simplified due diligence measures for high-risk clients.

Source: Luxembourg Times, by Kabir Agarwal

Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.

Want to promote your brand, or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.