| Summary: | Critical failings with AML-compliance have been observed in multiple Swedish banks over a period of time. The banks referred to often have complex organisational structures, where a parent company owns several subsidiaries, and the companies within the group are limited liability companies, LLCs. According to the law regulating LLCs, every LLC is an independent judicial person. The Swedish regulation has no specific set of rules applicable to LLCs in a company group. The AML-regulation can request a parent bank to fulfil the compliance standard on a group level. As a consequence, the parent bank becomes responsible for the subsidiary’s AML-compliance. In a recent case from the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, a parent bank emphasised that the LLC-regulation won’t allow a bank to carry out the governance and control necessary to comply with the AML-regulation. The same problem has been identified in the legal doctrine. According to The Swedish Companies Act, a parent company may only govern its subsidiary by bringing about decisions in the shareholders general meeting, in its capacity as a shareholder. The shareholders general meeting is the highest decision-making body in the company. However, the board have authority over the organisation and management of the company. In conclusion, there are significant difficulties imbedded in the LLC law since a parent company has no lawful right to instruct the subsidiary’s board, which obstructs the parent company from governing the subsidiary regarding AML- compliance. In this Master Thesis, I argue that the Swedish regulation needs modification and that the German law for company groups could efficiently serve as a model. Germany has had a codified law for company groups for a long time. As an example, a parent company and a subsidiary may enter into a control agreement which allows the parent company to instruct the subsidiary’s board directly. The German law also ensures protection for the subsidiary’s creditors since the parent company is obliged to cover any eventual losses in the subsidiary, if there is a said control agreement in place. A similar regulation in Sweden would facilitate for parent companies to govern subsidiaries regarding AML-compliance.
|
|---|
