modules/aml-review/references/professional-method.md

# Italian AML review method

Source starting points; CNDCEC materials checked 2026-09-05. Normattiva access
returned an error in that check; retrieve the current consolidated text before
relying on article-level conclusions. Verify current version and applicability
for each case. This is a research map, not an exhaustive or automatically current
legal rule engine.

If the Normattiva URN fails, locate the same act through its official search or
ELI route and select the case's effective date. Check the displayed `vigente al`
date: the act's latest amendment date does not establish that the displayed text
incorporates that amendment. A historical consolidated result is not a current
source merely because its header lists a recent update. Preserve an unresolved
legal-currentness limitation if the relevant text cannot be retrieved.

- D.lgs. 231/2007, consolidated text: https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2007-11-21;231
  Check scope and exclusions, client due diligence (including articles 17–25),
  retention (31–32), reporting (35), confidentiality (39) and abstention (42)
  as relevant to the actual engagement.
- CNDCEC technical rules and operational materials:
  https://commercialisti.it/norme-per-la-professione/norme-tecniche/antiriciclaggio/
  2025 rules: https://commercialisti.it/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Regole-Tecniche-antiriciclaggio-2025.pdf
  March 2026 guidance: https://commercialisti.it/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CNDCEC_Indicazioni-operative-1.pdf
  Use the current relevant AV forms and studio-approved templates, not invented
  substitutes presented as official forms. Studio-wide self-assessment is a
  separate professional obligation, not the client risk score.
- UIF indicators and schemes:
  https://uif.bancaditalia.it/normativa/norm-indicatori-anomalia/index.html
  Reporting guidance: https://uif.bancaditalia.it/adempimenti-operatori/segnalazioni-sos/
  Indicators support contextual assessment; their presence or absence is not an
  automatic reporting decision or clearance.

## Decisions the review should inform

Select depth from the actual engagement and evidence; do not apply every topic as
a mandatory questionnaire to every client.

**Applicability and relationship.** What service is being performed, for whom,
and for what purpose? Distinguish a continuing relationship from a one-off
operation, applicable exceptions from simplified measures, and the prior scope
from the present one. Explain the basis rather than treating a low numerical
score as proof of exemption.

**People, ownership and control.** Separate client, representative, executor,
nominee and beneficial owner. Follow direct and indirect ownership and control
using dated sources. Assess voting/control arrangements where evidenced; show
unresolved corporate links. The residual legal criterion is not a shortcut when
the investigation is incomplete. Record identity and authority evidence and
differences between declarations and independent documents.

**Economic explanation.** Compare the client's activity, scale, counterparties,
transaction purpose, payment route, contractual parties and available source of
funds/wealth evidence as relevant. Test explanations against amounts, dates and
documents. A third-party payment may have a documented lawful explanation; a
label in the ledger is not itself that explanation. Identify what would change
the conclusion, not a generic list of red flags.

**Screening and risk.** Separate an unresolved name match from a confirmed PEP or
sanctions result. Check date, population and provider coverage of supplied
reports. Assess contextual risk factors and mitigating evidence with reasons;
the professional decides scores and mandatory enhanced triggers. Reuse the
New Client versioned calculation only after its full input validation. Do not
let arithmetic override a mandatory measure or resolve an unknown trigger.

**Review and action.** Distinguish factual clarification, proposed assessment,
professional decision and implemented follow-up. Explain whether new evidence
changes prior reasoning. Suggest a review date based on the applicable framework
and relationship only for professional consideration; never silently assign a
universal annual cadence. Retain a dated evidence trail and reviewer rationale.

**Confidentiality.** Keep internal suspicion analysis separate from ordinary
document requests. A client-facing draft must not reveal a contemplated or made
SOS. Do not automatically generate or send such a draft from the internal memo.