# AMLR Art. 35 — Countermeasures outside the Union - **Part of:** [[AMLR]] - **FATF keying:** [[FATF R.19 - Higher-risk countries|FATF R.19]] - **Swiss provisions:** [[GwV-FINMA Art. 13 - Higher-risk business relationships|GwV-FINMA Art. 13]] - **Detailed citation:** GwV-FINMA Art. 13 ## What it requires For countries identified under Art. 29 and 31, the Commission may select from a catalogue of countermeasures: obliged-entity-level measures (additional enhanced due diligence elements, enhanced or systematic reporting mechanisms, limits on business relationships or transactions with persons from those countries) and Member-State-level measures (refusing or prohibiting branches and representative offices, increased supervisory examination or external audit requirements, and requiring review, amendment or termination of correspondent relationships with respondent institutions there). ## Swiss position GwV-FINMA Art. 13 Abs. 3 Bst. d treats a relationship with a person resident in an FATF high-risk or non-cooperative country, where the FATF calls for enhanced diligence, as higher-risk per se, triggering the Art. 15-17 clarification duties and Art. 18-19 senior-management approval. The Swiss texts reviewed contain no standing catalogue of country-level countermeasures - additional reporting mechanisms, branch-establishment restrictions, or mandatory correspondent-relationship review or termination - comparable to Art. 35's list; Swiss ordinance law works through case-by-case classification of the individual relationship rather than jurisdiction-wide restrictive measures. ## Key divergences AMLR Art. 35 operates at country level: the Commission can order EU-wide entity-level or Member-State-level measures targeted at a listed jurisdiction as a whole, including branch bans and required review (and, if necessary, termination) of correspondent relationships. GwV-FINMA Art. 13 Abs. 3 Bst. d operates at relationship level: FATF-blacklist residence is one of several fixed criteria that make a specific business relationship higher-risk, triggering client-level clarification and approval duties rather than jurisdiction-wide restrictions. Switzerland's AML instruments reviewed here contain no counterpart to the country-level countermeasure catalogue - no equivalent of enhanced systematic reporting mechanisms imposed on a jurisdiction, no branch/representative-office prohibition tied to a country listing, and no mandated review or termination of correspondent relationships tied to a country determination. ## Authoritative text > [!quote]- Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (AMLR), Article 35 — English text (EUR-Lex, CELEX 32024R1624) > **Article 35** > *Countermeasures to mitigate money laundering and terrorist financing threats from outside the Union* > For the purposes of Articles 29 and 31, the Commission may choose from among the following countermeasures: > (a) countermeasures that obliged entities are to apply to persons and legal entities involving high-risk third countries and, where relevant, other countries posing a threat to the Union’s financial system consisting in: > (i) the application of additional elements of enhanced due diligence; > (ii) the introduction of enhanced relevant reporting mechanisms or systematic reporting of financial transactions; > (iii) the limitation of business relationships or transactions with natural persons or legal entities from those third countries; > (b) countermeasures that Member States are to apply with regard to high-risk third countries and, where relevant, other countries posing a threat to the Union’s financial system consisting in: > (i) refusing the establishment of subsidiaries or branches or representative offices of obliged entities from the country concerned, or otherwise taking into account the fact that the relevant obliged entity is from a third country that does not have adequate AML/CFT regimes; > (ii) prohibiting obliged entities from establishing branches or representative offices in the third country concerned, or otherwise taking into account the fact that the relevant branch or representative office would be in a third country that does not have adequate AML/CFT regimes; > (iii) requiring increased supervisory examination or increased external audit requirements for branches and subsidiaries of obliged entities located in the third country concerned; > (iv) requiring increased external audit requirements for financial groups with respect to any of their branches and subsidiaries located in the third country concerned; > (v) requiring credit institutions and financial institutions to review and amend, or if necessary terminate, correspondent relationships with respondent institutions in the third country concerned. ## Sources - AMLR Art. 35 — CELEX 32024R1624 - GwV-FINMA SR 955.033.0, Art. 13