# VSB 20 Art. 6 — Duty of identification irrespective of minimum thresholds - **Rubric (DE):** Identifizierungspflicht unabhängig von Mindestgrenzen - **Rubric (EN):** Duty of identification irrespective of minimum thresholds - **Chapter:** 2. Kapitel — Identifizierung des Vertragspartners (1. Abschnitt: Allgemeine Bestimmungen) - **Scope:** Banks & securities firms (incorporated via [[GwV-FINMA Art. 35 - Identification, controlling person and beneficial|GwV-FINMA Art. 35]]) - **Status:** In force (since 1 January 2020) ## Description For transactions below the minimum thresholds (Art. 4 Abs. 2 Bst. g), the contracting partner must be identified where it is evident that an attempt is being made to circumvent identification by splitting an amount across several transactions (so-called *Smurfing*) (Abs. 1). Where there are indications of suspicion that assets originate from sources listed in Art. 9 Abs. 1 GwG, the contracting partner must be identified irrespective of minimum thresholds or exemptions from formal identification (Abs. 2). ## Context & interpretation The SBA commentary states that the identification duty applies below the CHF 15,000 limit of Art. 4 Abs. 2 Bst. g where attempts are made to circumvent identification, for example by splitting an amount across several transactions (Abs. 1). For Abs. 2, it states that the suspicion must be that the assets originate from sources listed in Art. 9 Abs. 1 GwG, namely assets connected with an offence under Art. 305bis StGB, deriving from a felony (Art. 10 Abs. 2 StGB) or a qualified tax offence (Art. 305bis Ziff. 1bis StGB), subject to the power of disposal of a criminal organisation (Art. 260ter StGB), or serving the financing of terrorism (Art. 260quinquies Abs. 1 StGB). ## FATF - [[FATF R.10 - Customer due diligence|FATF R.10]] — related: identification is required despite thresholds where there is suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing (Abs. 2) or where an amount is split to avoid identification (Abs. 1). ## Swiss counterparts - [[GwG Art. 3 - Verification of the identity of|GwG Art. 3]] — statutory basis: for cash transactions with a party not yet identified (Abs. 2) and for the premium amounts of insurance institutions (Abs. 3), identification despite the relevant amounts not being reached where there is suspicion of possible money laundering or terrorist financing (Abs. 4); linked transactions are covered in Abs. 2. - [[GwV-FINMA Art. 51 - Cash transactions|GwV-FINMA Art. 51]] — parallel rule: linked transactions are added together (Abs. 1) and identification is required in every case where there is suspicion of possible money laundering or terrorist financing (Abs. 3), whereas VSB Art. 6 Abs. 2 refers to suspicion as to sources listed in Art. 9 Abs. 1 GwG and also overrides exemptions from formal identification. - [[GwG Art. 9 - Duty to report (to MROS)|GwG Art. 9]] — Abs. 1 lists the sources to which VSB Art. 6 Abs. 2 refers. - [[VSB 20 Art. 4 - Identifying the contracting partner|VSB 20 Art. 4]] — Abs. 2 Bst. g sets the minimum threshold to which Abs. 1 refers. ## Part of - [[VSB 20]] ## Further AMLR connections - [[AMLR Art. 19 - Application of CDD|AMLR Art. 19]] — VSB Art. 6 Abs. 2 requires identification on ML suspicion despite thresholds or exemptions; Abs. 1 captures manifest splitting of amounts, whereas AMLR aggregates all linked transactions. *(direct)* ## Sources - VSB 20 (Vereinbarung vom 13. Juni 2018, in force 1.1.2020), Art. 6 - SBVg Kommentar zur VSB 20 (2020), Art. 6