# AMLR Art. 70 — Specific provisions for reporting of suspicions by certain categories of obliged entities > GwG Art. 9 Abs. 1ter (2025 revision, BBl 2025 2899) has been in force since 1 October 2026; Art. 22b, adopted with it, is not yet in force; the earlier secrecy-only exemption in Art. 9 Abs. 2 was replaced by the transaction-type test on that date. - **Part of:** [[AMLR]] - **FATF keying:** [[FATF R.20 - Reporting of suspicious transactions|FATF R.20]], [[FATF R.23 - DNFBPs - Other measures|FATF R.23]] - **Swiss provisions:** [[GwG Art. 9 - Duty to report (to MROS)|GwG Art. 9]], [[GwG Art. 22b - Cantonal supervision of public notaries|GwG Art. 22b]] - **Detailed citation:** GwG Art. 9 Abs. 1ter (advisers), Abs. 2 (lawyers/notaries); Art. 22b Abs. 2 (public-law notaries, *Urkundspersonen*; cantonal supervisor reports) ## What it requires Member States may let notaries, lawyers, other independent legal professionals, auditors, external accountants and tax advisors report to a designated self-regulatory body instead of directly to the FIU, which must forward promptly and unfiltered (Para 1). Legal professionals, auditors, accountants and tax advisors are exempted from the Art. 69(1) duty for information obtained while ascertaining a client's legal position or in judicial proceedings, unless they participate in or know the advice serves money laundering (Para 2). Member States may narrow that exemption for higher-risk transaction types (Para 3). ## Swiss position Until 30 September 2026, GwG Art. 9 Abs. 2 exempted lawyers and notaries from the Art. 9 Abs. 1 duty 'soweit ihre Tätigkeit dem Berufsgeheimnis nach Artikel 321 StGB untersteht' (professional secrecy). Since 1.10.2026 the revised Abs. 2 instead sets a two-part test: report only where the lawyer/notary (a) executes a financial transaction in the client's name or for their account, and (b) holds information not protected by Art. 321 StGB secrecy. The same revision adds Art. 9 Abs. 1ter, a parallel adviser reporting duty - see [[The adviser regime (2025 GwG revision)]] - and Art. 22b Abs. 2 (not yet in force), under which the canton's supervisory body itself reports to MROS where a defaulting public-law notary fails to. ## Key divergences AMLR's exemption turns on the type of task performed (ascertaining legal position, litigation) and reaches a broad professional class - legal professionals, auditors, accountants, tax advisors. Swiss law's carve-out turns on StGB Art. 321 professional secrecy and, on the sources read, covers only lawyers and notaries; since 1.10.2026 the duty also requires that the lawyer or notary executes a financial transaction for the client, and GwG Art. 2 Abs. 4 Bst. f takes their litigation-related work out of the Act. AMLR Art. 70(1)'s option of routing reports through a self-regulatory body that forwards unfiltered to the FIU has no counterpart identified in GwG Art. 9 for lawyers or notaries; GwG Art. 22b instead makes the cantonal adviser-supervisor a backstop reporter, and only for public-law notaries who fail to report themselves. ## Effective dates GwG Art. 9 Abs. 1ter (2025 revision, BBl 2025 2899) has been in force since 1 October 2026; Art. 22b, adopted with it, is not yet in force; the earlier secrecy-only exemption in Art. 9 Abs. 2 was replaced by the transaction-type test on that date. ## Authoritative text > [!quote]- Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (AMLR), Article 70 — English text (EUR-Lex, CELEX 32024R1624) > **Article 70** > *Specific provisions for reporting of suspicions by certain categories of obliged entities* > 1. By way of derogation from Article 69(1), Member States may allow obliged entities referred to in Article 3, point (3)(a) and (b), to transmit the information referred to in Article 69(1) to a self-regulatory body designated by the Member State. > The designated self-regulatory body shall forward the information referred to in the first subparagraph to the FIU promptly and unfiltered. > 2. Notaries, lawyers, other independent legal professionals, auditors, external accountants and tax advisors shall be exempted from the requirements laid down in Article 69(1) to the extent that such exemption relates to information that they receive from, or obtain on a client, in the course of ascertaining the legal position of that client, or performing their task of defending or representing that client in, or concerning, judicial proceedings, including providing advice on instituting or avoiding such proceedings, regardless of whether such information is received or obtained before, during or after such proceedings. > The exemption set out in the first subparagraph shall not apply when the obliged entities referred to therein: > (a) take part in money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing; > (b) provide legal advice for the purposes of money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing; or > (c) know that the client is seeking legal advice for the purposes of money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing; knowledge or purpose may be inferred from objective factual circumstances. > 3. In addition to the situations referred to in paragraph 2, second subparagraph, where justified on the basis of the higher risks of money laundering, its predicate offences or terrorist financing associated with certain types of transactions, Member States may decide that the exemption referred to in paragraph 2, first subparagraph, does not apply to those types of transactions and, as appropriate, impose additional reporting obligations on the obliged entities referred to in that paragraph. Member States shall notify the Commission of any decision taken pursuant to this paragraph. The Commission shall communicate such decisions to the other Member States. ## Sources - AMLR Art. 70 — CELEX 32024R1624 - GwG SR 955.0, Art. 9 - GwG (rev., BBl 2025 2899), Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 22b