Money laundering and unusual transactions: the difference under Dutch law

Money laundering and unusual transactions are two different things in Dutch law, and the difference is not a matter of degree. Money laundering is a criminal offence under articles 420bis and following of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Criminal Code): concealing or disguising the origin of property that derives from a crime, or acquiring, holding, transferring or converting such property while knowing where it came from. An unusual transaction is a supervisory concept from the Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme (Wwft, the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act): a transaction that an institution must report to FIU-Nederland because it meets an objective indicator or because, in the professional judgement of that institution, it may be connected to money laundering or terrorist financing. Reporting an unusual transaction is not an accusation, and being reported is not a crime.

Money laundering as a criminal offence

Witwassen is defined in the Criminal Code, not in the Wwft. That is the single most important thing to understand about this subject, because the two acts have different purposes, different addressees and different consequences. The Wwft is preventive and administrative; the Criminal Code is repressive. An institution can breach the Wwft without any money having been laundered, and a person can launder money without any institution having breached the Wwft.

The offence has two elements. There must be property that derives, directly or indirectly, from any criminal offence, and the person concerned must have concealed or disguised its origin, or have acquired, held, transferred, converted or used it while knowing that origin. It is not necessary to prove which specific crime produced the money; it is enough that the property can only have come from crime. Nor does it matter whether the underlying offence was committed in the Netherlands or abroad, or by the accused or by someone else. This breadth is what makes a money laundering charge so often an add-on to another prosecution.

Dutch law grades the offence, and the grading determines the maximum sentence:

• the basic offence, article 420bis: a maximum of six years imprisonment or a fine of the fifth category;
• habitual money laundering, article 420ter: a maximum of eight years;
• culpable money laundering, article 420quater, where the person should reasonably have suspected the criminal origin rather than actually knowing it: a maximum of two years;
• simple money laundering, article 420bis.1, which covers merely acquiring or holding proceeds of an offence you committed yourself, without any act of concealment: a maximum of six months, with a lower variant for the culpable form.

Intent is the hinge. For the basic offence the prosecution must prove knowledge, and conditional intent suffices: consciously accepting the significant chance that the money came from crime is enough. For the culpable variant, negligence suffices, which is why professionals who look away from an obvious problem are exposed. Conviction is regularly accompanied by confiscation of the criminal advantage in a separate procedure, and for a business it can be followed by a ban on exercising the profession. The relationship between the offence and the sentence is set out further in our guide to penalties for money laundering, and the wider context in our guide to recognising and combating money laundering.

Two practical points follow. First, the classic three phases of laundering, placement, layering and integration, are a description of how it is done and not a legal test; a court applies the statutory elements, not the model. Second, money laundering is not limited to organised crime. Unexplained cash in a business, a loan from a relative that cannot be traced, an invoice for services that were never supplied or an overpriced sale can all end up in a file, and the relationship with fraud and other financial crime is close.

What an unusual transaction is

The Wwft entered into force on 1 August 2008 and has been amended repeatedly to implement successive European directives. It obliges designated institutions to know their clients, to monitor their transactions and to report those that are unusual. The Netherlands is unusual in Europe in using that word: most member states require the reporting of suspicious transactions, whereas Dutch institutions report on a deliberately lower threshold and leave the assessment of suspicion to the Financial Intelligence Unit.

A transaction is unusual if it meets one of the indicators laid down by law. There are two kinds, and every reporting institution has to apply both.

Objective indicators are hard rules that leave no discretion. They are set out per category of institution in the annex to the Uitvoeringsbesluit Wwft 2018, and they include cash transactions above the threshold that applies to that category, transactions involving persons or entities established in a state designated as high risk, transactions that have already been reported to the police or the prosecution in connection with money laundering or terrorist financing, and money transfers above a set amount. Where the indicator is met, the transaction must be reported, even if the institution is convinced there is a perfectly good explanation.

The subjective indicator is a single, open standard: a transaction must be reported where the institution has reason to believe that it may be connected to money laundering or terrorist financing. This is where professional judgement operates, and it is deliberately broad. The typical signals are a transaction that has no apparent economic or lawful purpose, an amount or a pattern that does not fit the client profile, a structure that is more complex than the business justifies, payments split just below a threshold, unexplained urgency or secrecy, a reluctance to supply ordinary documentation, or a sudden change in the way an account is used. A refusal by a client to explain the source of funds is itself a signal, as our guide to recognising fraud describes in a related context.

Two consequences of this design are frequently misunderstood. An unusual transaction is not an accusation and does not mean the client has done anything wrong; the overwhelming majority of reports never lead anywhere. And an intended transaction that never takes place must be reported too, if it meets an indicator, which matters for advisers whose client withdraws once the questions start.

From unusual to suspicious: how the chain works

Reports go to FIU-Nederland, which is an independent authority and not a police service. The FIU receives, enriches and analyses the reports against its own databases and other sources, and only it can declare a reported transaction suspicious. Once it does, the transaction is placed in a register accessible to the investigation and prosecution services, and it can become the starting point of a criminal investigation. The volume is substantial: institutions file well over a million unusual transaction reports each year, of which only a fraction is declared suspicious, and the FIU publishes the figures in its annual report.

That two-step design is the heart of the system. The reporting institution is not asked to determine whether a crime has been committed; it is asked to notice and to report. The FIU makes the assessment, and the Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecution Service) decides on prosecution. The step from a report to criminal charges is therefore several removes away, and a client who discovers that a report has been made is not a suspect by that fact alone.

The law protects the institution that reports. Data supplied in good faith in a report cannot be used against the reporting institution in a criminal investigation into money laundering, and the institution and its staff are not liable for damage suffered by the client as a result of a report made in good faith. What is not protected is silence: an institution that decides not to report because it prefers not to lose a client carries the full risk itself. Equally, the tipping-off prohibition means that you may not inform the client, or any third party, that a report has been made or that an investigation may follow. That prohibition is absolute in its own terms and creates genuine difficulty for advisers, which is why the moment to seek advice is before the report, not after the client asks a question about it.

Who has to comply with the Wwft

The Wwft applies to a list of institutions, and the list is longer than most businesses expect. It covers banks, payment institutions, electronic money institutions, insurers, investment firms and fund managers, exchange offices and crypto service providers, and trust offices, which are additionally regulated by their own supervision act. It also covers a range of non-financial professions: civil-law notaries, accountants, tax advisers, administrative offices, estate agents and appraisers, dealers in high-value goods who accept cash payments of ten thousand euro or more, and providers of domicile services.

Lawyers are covered as well, but only in part, and the exception matters. An advocaat falls under the Wwft when advising on or assisting with specified transactions such as the purchase and sale of immovable property or a business, the management of money and securities, the incorporation or management of companies, or the setting up of structures. An advocaat does not fall under the Wwft when determining a client legal position or acting in connection with proceedings, including advising on instituting or avoiding them. That carve-out protects legal professional privilege, and it is why the professional bodies rather than the financial supervisors monitor compliance for the legal professions. Our overview of the legal professions in the Netherlands sets out who does what.

Supervision is divided accordingly. De Nederlandsche Bank supervises banks, payment institutions, insurers, trust offices and crypto service providers; the Autoriteit Financiele Markten supervises investment firms and fund managers; the Bureau Financieel Toezicht supervises notaries, accountants and tax advisers; Bureau Toezicht Wwft, part of the tax administration, supervises estate agents, appraisers and traders in goods; and the local bar authorities supervise lawyers. Each supervisor has its own enforcement instruments, and each publishes guidance that its own sector is expected to follow. If you are unsure which category you fall in, the answer determines everything else, and it is the first thing a compliance lawyer will establish.

What the Wwft actually requires

The obligations form a cycle rather than a checklist, and they are risk-based: the depth of what you do must be proportionate to the risk you have identified, and you must be able to show how you reached that assessment.

It starts with a documented risk assessment of your own business, covering client types, products and services, delivery channels and countries, and with internal policies, procedures and training that follow from it. Then comes the client investigation, the cliëntenonderzoek, which must be completed before the business relationship begins or the transaction is carried out. You establish and verify the identity of the client and of anyone acting on their behalf, and you establish and take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner, the natural person who ultimately owns or controls the entity, which for a company normally means an interest of more than twenty-five per cent of the shares or voting rights, or control by other means. You determine the purpose and intended nature of the relationship, and where relevant the source of the funds. Our note on due diligence investigations and our guide to Dutch corporate law explain how the ownership chain of a BV is normally documented.

Enhanced measures apply in higher-risk situations, including politically exposed persons, complex or unusually large transactions without an obvious economic purpose, clients or funds connected with a high-risk third country, and relationships conducted entirely at a distance. Simplified measures are allowed where the risk is demonstrably low, but never no measures at all. Where you cannot complete the client investigation, the rule is hard: you may not enter into or continue the relationship and you may not carry out the transaction, and you must consider whether the situation has to be reported. For businesses established abroad, this is a frequent source of friction, as our note on pitfalls for foreign companies illustrates.

The relationship must then be monitored for as long as it lasts, so that transactions are checked against what you know about the client, and the file must be kept up to date. Records of the client investigation and of transactions must be retained for five years, counted from the end of the relationship or the execution of the transaction. And where an indicator is met, the transaction must be reported to FIU-Nederland without delay.

How a report is made

Reporting runs through goAML, the FIU portal. An institution registers once, designates the people authorised to file, and thereafter submits reports electronically. A report identifies the client and any beneficial owner, describes the transaction, its amount, its timing and the accounts or instruments involved, and, crucially, sets out the reason why the transaction is regarded as unusual. That last element is what makes the report usable; a report that says only that an amount was large adds nothing to the analysis.

Timing is part of the obligation. The law requires the report to be made without delay after the unusual character of the transaction becomes known, and supervisors treat a structural delay as a breach in itself. Keep the underlying documentation, keep a record of what was reported and when, and keep the internal assessment that led to the decision, including the cases in which you decided not to report. That file is your evidence that the system works, and a supervisor will ask for it. Note also that reporting to the FIU is not the same as filing a police report: the two are different acts with different addressees and different consequences.

What happens if you do not comply

Non-compliance with the Wwft is enforced along two tracks that can be used in sequence or in parallel.

The first is administrative. The competent supervisor can give instructions, impose an order subject to a penalty payment, impose an administrative fine and, in serious cases, publish the decision. The maximum fine follows the category system in the Wwft and is expressed as a fixed maximum, twice the benefit obtained, or a percentage of turnover, whichever is higher, with the highest bracket reserved for serious, culpable and repeated breaches by large institutions. Publication frequently does more damage than the fine.

The second is criminal. Breaches of the core Wwft obligations are economic offences under the Wet op de economische delicten and can therefore be prosecuted, against the entity and against the natural persons who gave the instructions or were in effective control. The Public Prosecution Service has concluded settlements of considerable size with financial institutions for structural failures in client investigation and transaction monitoring, and it has made clear that individual directors and compliance officers are within scope. Where an institution has not merely failed to report but has actively assisted, the charge moves from a Wwft offence to money laundering itself, with the maxima described above. Directors should be aware that this is one of the areas where personal liability of directors is not theoretical.

Alongside both tracks sit professional consequences. Notaries, accountants, tax advisers and lawyers face disciplinary proceedings before their own tribunals, which can suspend or strike off. And for regulated institutions there is the supervisory consequence that outlasts any fine: an intensified supervision regime, conditions on the licence, or a reassessment of the fitness and propriety of the directors. A file that begins as a penalty order can end as a licence problem.

If you are the subject of an investigation, the ordinary rules of Dutch criminal procedure apply: the right to remain silent, the right to consult a lawyer before and during questioning, and the right to see the file. What to do if you are suspected of an offence is set out separately, and the same applies to the course of a criminal case in the Netherlands. Do not reconstruct records after the fact and do not discuss the file with the client whose transaction was reported; both convert a defensible position into a new offence.

Where unusual transactions surface most often

Four settings account for a large share of Dutch reports, and knowing them helps both institutions and their clients avoid avoidable trouble.

The first is property. A purchase financed with money whose origin is not documented, a price that departs markedly from the market, a rapid resale, or a purchase through a chain of entities all attract attention, and the civil-law notary who executes the deed has an independent duty to investigate and to report. The second is cash. Cash-intensive businesses such as hospitality, car sales, wholesale and building can be entirely legitimate and still generate reports, simply because the objective indicators are met; the answer is a documented cash administration that explains the turnover, not an argument with the bank.

The third is corporate structures. Newly incorporated entities with no economic activity, a beneficial owner who is difficult to identify, loans between related parties without documentation, or invoicing that does not correspond to any deliverable are classic subjective indicators. The fourth is crypto and cross-border payment flows, where the origin of funds is often genuinely hard to establish and where the supervisor expects more rather than less evidence.

In each of these settings the same defence works: contemporaneous documentation of the source of funds and the economic purpose of the transaction. A client who can produce a sale contract, a bank statement showing where the money came from and a plausible commercial rationale rarely has a problem, whatever the indicators say. A client who cannot will find that the bank terminates the relationship, which it is entitled to do, and that the file has already been reported. Our complete guide to money laundering in the Netherlands sets out the signals in more detail, and if a report has already led to questions from an investigator, our note on defence against a money laundering allegation explains what is at stake.

What changes from 2027

The European framework is being replaced. The anti-money laundering package adopted in 2024 consists of a directly applicable regulation, a sixth directive and a regulation establishing a European supervisor. The Anti-Money Laundering Authority, AMLA, based in Frankfurt, started operating in 2025 and will directly supervise a selected group of high-risk cross-border institutions in addition to coordinating national supervisors. The regulation and the new directive apply from 10 July 2027, with some exceptions.

Three changes matter for Dutch practice. Much of the detail that now sits in the Wwft will be set directly by the regulation, which reduces national variation and means that Dutch guidance will have to be re-read against the European text. The scope widens further, notably for crypto service providers, football clubs and agents in the professional game, and traders in luxury goods. And an EU-wide limit on cash payments in the course of a trade or business, set at ten thousand euro, will apply, with identification required for cash transactions above a lower threshold. Institutions should be planning the transition now rather than in 2027, because client files that do not meet the new standard will have to be remediated, not merely maintained.

What this means in practice

For a business or a professional under the Wwft, the risk is almost never that you failed to detect a criminal. It is that you cannot demonstrate what you did and why. Write down the risk assessment, complete the client investigation before you act, record the reasons for the conclusions you reached, report without delay when an indicator is met, and keep the file for five years. Where you have doubts about a transaction, resolve them in writing and in time; a decision not to report that is reasoned and documented is defensible, while the same decision left unrecorded is not.

For a client whose transaction has been reported, the important point is that a report is not a charge. If questions do follow, from the bank, a supervisor or an investigator, the answer is to explain the source and purpose of the funds with documents, not to reduce contact. Where the questions turn into a criminal investigation, the framework of Dutch criminal law takes over, and the rules of Dutch law on evidence and on procedure determine what happens next.

Law and More advises institutions on Wwft compliance, client investigation and reporting policy, assists in supervisory investigations and enforcement proceedings, and defends companies and individuals accused of money laundering. Our lawyers also review compliance frameworks before a supervisor does. If you have received a request for information, are considering whether a transaction must be reported, or are facing an investigation, we are available to go through the file with you.

Money laundering or unusual transactions?