Investment Management regulatory updates from Netherlands.
We track 36 Investment Management updates from Netherlands regulators, published by AFM. The archive covers 10 guidance notes, 7 reports and 5 news items. Most recent update: November 2026.
Update 31 augustus 2026: In beroep heeft de rechtbank de boete met €52.500 gematigd en vastgesteld op € 142.500, onder andere vanwege de evenredigheid in algemene zin en vanwege een overschrijding van de redelijke termijn uit artikel 6 EVRM. Zie hier de actuele stand van zaken . Grinta Invest was een illegale…
AI Analysis
The AFM sanctioned finfluencer J. van den Brink for jointly carrying out unlicensed asset management with Grinta Invest by promoting it, recruiting investors, supporting onboarding and acting as a contact point. Although the AFM announced a €195,000 fine, the Rotterdam District Court reduced it to €142,500 on 31 August 2026, citing proportionality, delayed regulatory action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR. The case signals that an individual promoter may face direct enforcement exposure where marketing and referral activity materially enables unlicensed investment services, particularly when remuneration is linked to invested capital.
Key dates
2021-12-20
The AFM published its exploratory report on finfluencing, identifying unlicensed advice, risky recommendations, cooperation with unlicensed firms and customer-referral fees as key pitfalls.
2026-08-31
The Rotterdam District Court reduced the Van den Brink fine by €52,500 to €142,500, citing proportionality, delayed AFM action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR.
2026-11-05
The AFM published the enforcement update describing the original €195,000 fine and the court's final €142,500 outcome.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams should consider inventorying all finfluencer, affiliate, introducer and referral arrangements, including website links, discount codes, lead forms and onboarding assistance.
Firms should consider verifying the AFM authorisation status of every investment-service provider, platform or asset manager promoted by employees, affiliates or contracted influencers before publication or referral activity begins.
Investment firms should consider testing whether any payment is calculated by reference to the number of referred customers, account openings, onboarding progress, deposits or invested assets, as these features create heightened Dutch inducement and conduct risk.
Firms should consider separating permitted advertising services from customer-introduction or onboarding activities and documenting why each arrangement does not involve unauthorised investment advice, portfolio management or participation in unlicensed services.
Marketing and compliance teams may wish to review influencer scripts, direct messages, Q&A responses and customer-support practices for advice, personalised recommendations or operational assistance that exceeds passive advertising.
Firms should consider collecting and retaining contracts, commission calculations, communications, approval records and evidence of licence checks so that the commercial purpose and control framework for each promotion can be demonstrated.
Governance committees may wish to treat unusually high or asset-based referral commissions, including percentages of customer deposits, as escalation indicators requiring enhanced legal and compliance review.
Firms should consider reviewing legacy arrangements in light of the AFM's 2021 finfluencer findings and subsequent enforcement against referral-fee models, including arrangements involving execution-only services.
What changed
This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or general licensing amendment. The AFM treated Van den Brink's combined activities—promotion through social media and a website, investor introduction, assistance with registration, responses to investor questions and acting as a contact person—as participation in illegal asset management, not merely advertising. The AFM stated that Grinta Invest had no required licence and that Van den Brink received substantial referral remuneration, including 10% of investors' deposited capital; the remuneration was relevant to the original fine.
Compliance impact
The enforcement demonstrates potentially severe personal exposure for an influencer whose promotional, referral and onboarding activities materially facilitate unlicensed asset management; the regulator expressly linked the original penalty to high commissions and investor losses. It also reinforces that Dutch inducement and licensing risks extend beyond the authorised investment firm to third parties and commercial arrangements surrounding customer acquisition, although the court's reduction shows that proportionality and procedural delay can affect the final penalty.
Beleggen kan een mooi middel zijn om vermogen op te bouwen, maar gaat ook gepaard met risico’s. Informatie aan consumenten is dus van groot belang. Daarom is de AFM dit jaar aanwezig op de landelijke Week van de Belegger - op de BeleggersFair op vrijdag 13 november in de Beurs van Berlage in Amsterdam.
Why this matters
The main content announces AFM participation in a consumer investor event (BeleggersFair, 13 November 2026) and reiterates existing consumer resources: the prospectus register, licence registers, warning lists and the Meldpunt.
Met nog een jaar te gaan tot de invoering van T+1-settlement op 11 oktober 2027 roept ESMA marktpartijen op hun voorbereidingen af te ronden, hun operationele gereedheid te beoordelen en zo snel mogelijk te starten met testen in de handels- en afwikkelingsketen. Met de publicatie van de laatste technische standaarden…
AI Analysis
AFM is relaying ESMA’s confirmation that the EU T+1 settlement framework is complete and that securities transactions will move from T+2 to T+1 on 11 October 2027. The immediate compliance priority is the first phased requirement, applying from 7 December 2026, for investment firms and their professional clients to exchange allocations and confirmations through electronic, standardised and machine-readable channels; industry commentary highlights material impacts on automation, matching, settlement instructions, custody, FX, liquidity and cross-border operating models.
Key dates
2026-12-07 Deadline
First phased requirements under the amended RTS on settlement discipline and related ESMA guidelines apply to allocations and confirmations, including electronic, standardised and machine-readable communications, subject to the temporary technical disruption exception.
2027-07-01 Deadline
Additional phased requirements under the amended RTS on settlement discipline become applicable, as specified in the regulation’s transitional provisions.
2027-10-11 Deadline
Regulation (EU) 2025/2075 applies and the EU standard securities settlement cycle changes from T+2 to T+1; the final phase of related settlement-layer requirements also applies.
Suggested considerations
Firms should map every affected transaction type, market, currency, venue, CSD, custodian, broker, client and outsourcing provider across the full trading and settlement ecosystem rather than assessing only internal readiness.
Compliance and operations teams may wish to confirm whether allocations and confirmations can be completed on trade date and transmitted through electronic, standardised and machine-readable channels from 7 December 2026, including accurate place-of-settlement data where required.
Firms should assess and test ISO or other applicable international messaging standards, matching platforms, standing settlement instruction governance, exception handling and the documented process for temporary technical disruptions.
Firms should identify manual processing steps that cannot reliably operate within the shortened timetable and consider automation, straight-through processing, reconciliation, controls over data quality and resilient fallback arrangements.
Firms should obtain implementation commitments and test plans from clients, brokers, custodians, CSD participants, CSDs, CCPs, vendors and outsourcing providers, with evidence of end-to-end testing and defect remediation.
Firms should review liquidity, collateral, margin, FX funding, corporate-action, securities-lending, fund dealing and investment-operation processes for the reduced interval between trade and settlement.
Firms should maintain a regulatory change plan covering the phased milestones on 7 December 2026, 1 July 2027 and 11 October 2027, with senior management oversight, documented risk acceptance and escalation of unresolved dependencies.
What changed
Regulation (EU) 2025/2075 amends Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) and provides for the EU settlement cycle to apply on a T+1 basis from 11 October 2027. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1536 amends the RTS on settlement discipline in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1229, with phased application beginning on 7 December 2026. From 7 December 2026, the allocation and confirmation process must use electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards, with machine-readable communications required except during temporary technical disruptions.
Compliance impact
This is a high-priority operational and regulatory change rather than merely a future-market convention: the 7 December 2026 allocation and confirmation requirements are binding requirements under the amended settlement-discipline framework, while the 11 October 2027 T+1 date is established by Regulation (EU) 2025/2075.
De AFM heeft het beleid voor het vaststellen van de hoogte van bestuurlijke boetes geactualiseerd. Het beleid is op onderdelen aangepast en verduidelijkt. Per 15 oktober 2026 treedt het nieuwe Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026 in werking. De wijzigingen zijn overwegend technisch en verduidelijkend van aard.
AI Analysis
De AFM vervangt per 15 oktober 2026 het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2021 door het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026. Hoewel de AFM de wijzigingen hoofdzakelijk technisch en verduidelijkend noemt, neemt de beleidsruimte toe om aanzienlijk af te wijken van het wettelijke basisbedrag en wordt de berekening van omzetgerelateerde boetes voor grotere ondernemingen voorspelbaarder maar potentieel aanzienlijker.
Key dates
2026-10-14
AFM publiceert de actualisering van het boetetoemetingsbeleid.
2026-10-15
Het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026 treedt in werking en vervangt in beginsel het beleid van 2021, behoudens toepasselijke overgangsregimes.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map each relevante overtreding tegen het toepasselijke wettelijke basisbedrag, de boetecategorie en het wettelijke omzetgerelateerde maximum onder de Wft, het Bbbfs en toepasselijke EU-regels.
Grotere ondernemingen may wish to model exposure using three- to ten-times the applicable basisbedrag for potential zware zaken, followed by a documented proportionality assessment and review against the relevant percentage-of-turnover ceiling.
Firms should consider strengthening evidence on remediation, cooperation, duration, limited impact, absence of recidive, financial position and any other mitigating circumstances, because the updated policy gives the AFM greater scope to move materially away from the basisbedrag.
Boards and senior compliance owners may wish to review open investigations, pending enforcement matters and historic breaches to assess whether the 2026 policy or an applicable transitional regime is relevant.
Legal and compliance teams may wish to verify the final AFM 2026 policy and its transitional provisions, particularly where the alleged conduct occurred before 15 October 2026 or where the applicable legal maximum has recently changed.
Firms may wish to update enforcement-risk scenarios, management information and provisions to reflect that a lower basisbedrag is not necessarily a reliable proxy for the final penalty in a serious case.
What changed
Het beleid blijft gebaseerd op het bestaande stappenplan, maar verduidelijkt dat het wettelijke basisbedrag slechts een globaal uitgangspunt is. De ernst van de overtreding kan aanleiding geven tot een aanzienlijke verhoging of verlaging, waardoor de AFM meer ruimte krijgt voor vergaand maatwerk in lijn met recente jurisprudentie.
Compliance impact
De wijziging creëert geen nieuwe primaire gedragsnormen, maar kan de financiële en litigation exposure bij handhaving vergroten doordat de AFM in ernstige zaken verder van het wettelijke basisbedrag kan afwijken. De omzetgerelateerde methodiek voor grotere ondernemingen wordt duidelijker: een uitgangspunt van drie- tot tienmaal het basisbedrag kan vervolgens worden gematigd wegens evenredigheid, maar blijft begrensd door het toepasselijke wettelijke maximum, zoals 10%, 15% of 20% van de netto-jaaromzet waar de wet dat voorschrijft.
Sinds juli 2026 is de Europese richtlijn Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT) van kracht. Deze richtlijn stelt specifiekere eisen aan duurzaamheidsclaims, inclusief concrete verboden. De regels gelden ook voor financiële ondernemingen, naast de informatieverstrekkingsnormen vanuit de Wet op het…
AI Analysis
AFM has reminded financial undertakings that the Dutch implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/825, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT or EmpCo) Directive, applies to consumer-facing sustainability claims and marketing, in addition to sectoral requirements under the Wft, SFDR, MiFID II and IDD. The rules prohibit specified greenwashing practices, including unsupported generic environmental claims, certain compensation-based climate-neutrality claims and unverified sustainability labels; independent commentary also highlights that existing claims and financial-services marketing fall within the broad cross-sector regime.
Key dates
2024-02-28
Directive (EU) 2024/825 was adopted, amending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive.
2026-03-27 Deadline
EU Member States were required to adopt and publish national transposition measures.
2026-06-24
The Dutch Implementatiewet richtlijn betere duurzaamheidsinformatie voor consumenten was published in the Staatsblad, according to the AFM publication.
2026-07-16
The Dutch implementation legislation entered into force, according to the AFM publication.
2026-09-27
The ECGT rules became applicable to consumer-facing commercial communications across the EU, including relevant financial-services marketing; the regime is applicable as at the publication date of 2026-10-09.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to inventory all consumer-facing sustainability claims, labels and environmental references used in websites, fund marketing, advertisements, product names, brochures, social media, sales scripts and corporate marketing.
Firms should consider mapping each claim to the specific product, service, activity or business component to avoid implying whole-product or whole-enterprise sustainability where the evidence covers only part of the offering.
Firms should consider maintaining an evidence file for every material claim, including the scope of the claim, methodology, data sources, verification, assumptions, limitations and approval owner.
Marketing and product-governance reviews may wish to identify generic terms such as green, sustainable, environmentally friendly, climate positive and eco-friendly and confirm whether the required recognised excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated.
Firms should consider removing or rewriting claims that describe products or services as climate neutral, carbon neutral or having reduced climate impact where the claim depends solely or materially on offsetting emissions, and should distinguish mitigation from compensation.
Compliance teams may wish to review all sustainability labels, badges and proprietary ESG marks and confirm that each is supported by an eligible certification scheme or public scheme with appropriate independent verification.
Firms communicating net-zero, climate-neutrality or other future environmental objectives should consider documenting a detailed and realistic implementation plan with measurable interim targets, deadlines, governance, monitoring and evidence of progress.
Firms should consider testing claims against both the ECGT/BW 6 requirements and applicable Wft, SFDR, MiFID II, IDD and other sectoral disclosure and conduct standards, because satisfying a sectoral disclosure rule does not cure a claim prohibited under the consumer-law framework.
What changed
The Dutch Implementatiewet richtlijn betere duurzaamheidsinformatie voor consumenten amended Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code, including the rules on unfair commercial practices in Articles 6:193a et seq., to implement Directive (EU) 2024/825, which amends Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices and Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. For consumer-facing commercial communications, sustainability claims should be specific, accurate, verifiable and supported by appropriate evidence.
Compliance impact
The impact is high for firms using sustainability language in retail marketing because prohibited practices are unlawful irrespective of whether a specific Wft rule addresses the claim. AFM describes enforcement as already possible, while independent commentary from PwC, Dirkzwager, Holla, Arthur Cox and Grant Thornton confirms a broad cross-sector scope, heightened substantiation expectations and practical exposure for existing claims, labels and future-performance statements.
Het Nederlandse juridische kader biedt momenteel geen basis voor effecten die uitsluitend als token worden uitgegeven, aangehouden en overgedragen. Daardoor dreigt Nederland achter te raken bij de ontwikkeling van digitale financiële markten en toekomstige financiële marktinfrastructuren. Dat concluderen de Autoriteit…
AI Analysis
AFM and DNB stated on 7 October 2026 that Dutch law does not currently provide a sufficient legal basis for securities that are issued, held and transferred exclusively as tokens, meaning native tokenisation is not presently workable under existing Dutch legislation. The publication is a policy signal rather than a new binding requirement, but it indicates that the regulators expect a coordinated government, supervisory and market process to assess legislative clarification and align the Netherlands with European tokenisation developments.
Key dates
2026-10-07
AFM and DNB published their joint policy statement and exploration on tokenisation of securities in the Netherlands.
2023-03-23
Applications became available under the EU DLT Pilot Regime as implemented and supervised in the Netherlands; this is relevant background for firms assessing DLT market-infrastructure models, not a new deadline arising from the AFM and DNB publication.
Suggested considerations
Firms should classify each proposed tokenised instrument by its legal and regulatory characteristics, distinguishing securities or other MiFID II financial instruments from crypto-assets covered by MiCA and from non-financial crypto-assets.
Compliance and legal teams may wish to document whether the proposed arrangement is native tokenisation or a hybrid model, identify which record constitutes the legally authoritative record, and assess the resulting title, transfer, custody, settlement and insolvency risks under Dutch law.
Market infrastructures and investment firms considering a DLT model should assess whether Regulation (EU) 2022/858 and the Dutch DLT Pilot Regime are available, including the need for specific permission and the eligibility limits applicable to DLT financial instruments and operators.
Firms should continue applying existing requirements, including MiFID II conduct and organisational rules, the Prospectus Regulation where applicable, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 on market abuse, Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 on central securities depositories where applicable, and relevant custody, client-asset and investor-protection controls; the AFM and DNB statement does not disapply them.
Issuers, custodians, trading venues and service providers may wish to participate in or monitor the proposed government-supervisor-market follow-up and prepare concrete use cases that identify where statutory clarification, contractual documentation or a Dutch legislative amendment would be needed.
Firms operating cross-border should compare the Dutch position with jurisdictions that have introduced specific legal recognition for electronic or DLT-based securities, while avoiding reliance on another jurisdiction's legal treatment without confirming Dutch offering, custody, settlement and investor-protection implications.
Governance functions may wish to update technology, legal, operational-resilience and outsourcing risk assessments to account for the possibility that infrastructure and issuance activity migrate to jurisdictions offering greater legal certainty.
What changed
No legislation, regulatory technical standard, authorisation requirement or immediate compliance deadline was introduced. AFM and DNB jointly identified a legal gap: although EU and Dutch law do not generally prohibit DLT, market participants are commonly forced to maintain both a DLT-based record and a traditional legal administration, creating uncertainty about the legal significance of the token and limiting efficiency gains.
Compliance impact
The immediate compliance impact is limited because the publication creates no new binding obligation or deadline. Its strategic and legal significance is material: the regulators warn that continued reliance on hybrid records may create uncertainty over the legal status and transfer of tokenised securities and may cause investment and future market infrastructure to move to other jurisdictions, while signalling that Dutch legislative or regulatory clarification may follow.
De Europese autoriteit die zich bezighoudt met het voorkomen van witwassen en terrorismefinanciering, AMLA, heeft technische standaarden ( Regulatory Technical Standard (RTS)) gepubliceerd. Deze geven nadere invulling aan onderdelen van de nieuwe Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) waaronder het cliëntenonderzoek…
Why this matters
This is a policy statement and technical standard publication from AMLA that provides concrete regulatory guidance on implementing the new European AML/CFT framework.
Met een DSI-registratie kunnen beleggingsprofessionals laten zien dat ze vakbekwaam zijn. Deze registratie is geen verplichting, maar wél een manier om te voldoen aan de vakbekwaamheidsvereisten die door de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) wordt erkend en dat blijft de komende jaren ook zo. Want de AFM en Stichting…
Why this matters
The AFM announces a renewed covenant with DSI (professional competency registration body) governing how investment professionals demonstrate competency. The update is substantive—it reflects an effectiveness audit, introduces new quality assurance arrangements, and updates regulatory references—but does not impose new...
Marktpartijen willen graag meer duidelijkheid over beleggingsconcepten, waaronder automatisch herbalanceren en risicoafbouw bij zelfbeleggen (‘execution only’). De AFM onderzocht onder welke voorwaarden dat zou kunnen; ons consultatiedocument bevat concrete denkrichtingen én mogelijke oplossingsrichtingen. We nodigen…
Why this matters
This is a formal AFM consultation document (deadline 11 November 2026) addressing regulatory treatment of model portfolio services within execution-only (self-directed) investment services.
Financial institutions are becoming increasingly dependent on digital systems. At the same time, the risks of disruptions are rising due to cyberattacks, geopolitical tensions, and the growing complexity of IT landscapes. A rapid and effective recovery of IT systems is essential to maintaining service availability for…
Why this matters
This is a regulatory intelligence report from the AFM (Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets) examining IT recovery preparedness among large institutional asset managers. The content is informational in nature—presenting findings from a completed study rather than announcing new rules or enforcement actions.
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten heeft deze zomer een sterke toename gezien in het aantal vragen en signalen dat zij ontvangt over finfluencing en online beleggingscontent. Deze content kan, met of zonder opzet, leiden tot misinformatie, slechte beleggingen of zelfs oplichting. Daarom publiceert de AFM de ‘red flags’…
Why this matters
This is a regulatory alert and consumer guidance document from AFM (Dutch financial regulator) addressing the growing phenomenon of finfluencers and online investment content.
Nederlanders houden hun financiën lang niet altijd actief tegen het licht. Veel mensen weten bijvoorbeeld niet of zij bepaalde verzekeringen hebben, hoe hun pensioen is geregeld of welke mogelijkheden hun betaalrekening biedt. Tegelijkertijd doet AI zijn intrede bij financiële keuzes: één op de zeven Nederlanders…
Why this matters
This is a press release announcing findings from the AFM's annual Consumer Monitor survey (2026 edition). The content is informational and research-based rather than prescriptive.
De naleving van de normen uit de Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme (Wwft) en de Sanctiewet (Sw) door beheerders van beleggingsinstellingen is op belangrijke onderdelen verbeterd. Dat blijkt uit de vragenlijst van de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) over 2024. (Een groot deel van) de…
Why this matters
This is a regulatory news item reporting AFM's 2024 questionnaire findings on Wwft (AML) and Sanctiewet compliance by investment fund managers (AIFM). The update identifies specific compliance gaps (66% lack transaction profiles, 55% unregistered with FIU-Nederland, ~45% of daily policymakers lack Wwft training),...
The financial sector has made major progress since the introduction of the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). At the same time, as a result of its supervision and requests for information, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified areas requiring further action from financial…
Why this matters
AFM regulatory update on DORA compliance progress and implementation gaps. Informational content summarizing sector-wide developments, compliance improvements (94% register approval), and areas requiring attention (incident reporting, policy documentation, threshold calculations).
Many fund managers have their compliance and internal audit functions well organised. Nevertheless, improvements are needed. For example, documentation is not always up to date, fund managers do not always retain sufficient control when outsourcing, and decisions based on proportionality are often insufficiently…
Why this matters
AFM guidance on compliance and internal audit function improvements for fund managers. Addresses documentation quality, outsourcing oversight, and proportionality justification. Informational supervisory guidance from European Common Supervisory Action (CSA) coordinated by ESMA.
The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) and the French Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) support the European Commission’s proposals to strengthen supervisory convergence and market integration through the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP). As discussions on the future of European…
AI Analysis
AFM and AMF have issued a joint position paper supporting the EU Commission’s Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP) and setting out **five enablers** they see as conditions for effective, centralised EU‑level supervision by ESMA. This matters for compliance teams because it signals a medium‑term shift towards more **risk‑based, data‑driven, and ESMA‑centric supervision**, with impacts on funding models, governance expectations, data and reporting architecture, and enforcement across all major EU capital‑markets activities.
Key dates
22 July 2026
– AFM/AMF joint press release and position paper “From design to delivery – five enablers for effective European supervision” published, formally articulating the five enablers for centralised EU‑level supervision under the MISP
TBD (MISP legislative timeline)
– Specific dates for adoption and phased implementation of the Market Integration and Supervision Package will follow the EU legislative process; firms should anticipate a multi‑year transition with key milestones likely aligned to ESMA governance and funding reforms and initial scopes of direct supervision
Suggested considerations
Review and update the firm’s supervisory engagement strategy to include structured, proactive engagement with ESMA (not just NCAs), anticipating more direct interactions, thematic reviews, and data requests at EU level.
Assess current risk‑assessment and risk‑reporting frameworks to ensure they are compatible with a risk‑based and adaptive supervisory approach, including the ability to demonstrate how your firm identifies, measures, and mitigates emerging risks and new business models.
Conduct a gap analysis of data architecture and regulatory reporting, focusing on data quality, standardisation, and ability to feed into centralised EU data hubs; plan upgrades to systems, controls, and data governance to support ESMA‑level data centralisation.
Prepare for potential changes in supervisory levies and funding, by modelling the impact of EU‑level ESMA fees in addition to national contributions and incorporating them into medium‑term budgeting and pricing strategies.
Review governance arrangements, including board oversight, senior management responsibilities, and internal escalation processes, to ensure they can meet higher expectations of independent, transparent, and accountable governance under an ESMA‑centric model.
What changed
- ESMA is explicitly positioned as the central supervisory authority for selected capital‑markets activities, with national competent authorities (NCAs) expected to operate within a more formalised...
Supervisory objectives are reframed towards risk‑based and adaptive supervision, meaning firms should expect more differentiated supervisory intensity based on risk profile, business model, and...
The paper supports proportionate and transparent funding for ESMA, indicating a future where firms may be subject to EU‑level supervisory levies or fee structures in addition to national regimes,...
AFM and AMF call for independent, transparent, and accountable EU‑level supervisory governance, foreshadowing changes to ESMA’s decision‑making bodies, oversight processes, and accountability...
Data centralisation is identified as a core enabler, implying a stronger move towards EU‑wide data hubs, harmonised reporting formats, and central access for ESMA to transaction, position, and...
Compliance impact
The immediate impact is strategic rather than operational, but non‑compliance with future ESMA‑level requirements on data, governance, and cross‑border conduct could lead to EU‑wide enforcement, higher sanctions, and constraints on passporting and market access. Early alignment with the five enablers will position firms better for the coming supervisory architecture and reduce transition risk once binding rules are adopted.
Leren is hard werken, stelt bestuursvoorzitter Laura van Geest in haar periodieke column in Het Financieele Dagblad . Ze stelt dat dat geldt voor de eindexamenkandidaten het afgelopen jaar, voor de betrokkenen bij het coronabeleid en ook voor de financiële sector en haar toezichthouder. De column van Laura van Geest…
Why this matters
This is an opinion column by AFM Chair Laura van Geest discussing regulatory supervision philosophy and learning culture in financial services. It addresses how supervisors can balance enforcement with growth-oriented approaches, using examples from banking (anti-money laundering) and accounting sectors.
Per 19 juni treedt de herziene Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive (DMFSD) in werking. De DMFSD bevat regels ter bescherming van consumenten bij het online sluiten van overeenkomsten voor financiële diensten. De regels gaan over precontractuele informatie, een ontbindingsrecht voor consumenten en…
Why this matters
AFM regulatory guidance on DMFSD implementation (effective 19 June 2024) regarding consumer protection in online financial services. Addresses dark patterns and manipulative design in digital customer journeys across multiple financial sectors.
In its SREP Market Overview 2025, the AFM notes that many firms have their foundations in order, but that implementation is lagging behind. Internal control and IT risks, in particular, require improvement. The message is clear: ensure that policies are not merely in place, but that they demonstrably work in practice.
Why this matters
AFM's SREP Market Overview 2025 provides regulatory guidance on implementation gaps in internal controls, IT risk management, and governance. This is informational content highlighting supervisory expectations rather than announcing new rules.
This is a general newsletter subscription announcement from AFM highlighting their commitment to fair and transparent financial markets. It contains no specific regulatory requirements, deadlines, or actionable guidance.
This is a general newsletter announcement from AFM promoting fair and transparent financial markets. It contains no specific regulatory requirements, deadlines, or actionable guidance. The content is informational and promotional in nature, addressing the AFM's broad mandate across multiple sectors and firm types.
Advanced AI models can speed up the process of identifying and combining vulnerabilities. As a result, organisations have less time to address vulnerabilities and mitigate incidents. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, with less advanced security or older systems, may be relatively more vulnerable. The…
Why this matters
AFM speech addressing AI-driven cyber threats and resilience requirements. Applies broadly across financial services sectors with emphasis on vulnerability management, patch management, and incident response. Classified as informational/advisory content rather than binding regulation, hence null urgency.
This is a general newsletter subscription announcement from AFM (Dutch financial regulator) emphasizing their commitment to fair markets and market conduct. No specific regulatory requirement, deadline, or enforcement action is mentioned. Content is informational/promotional in nature, therefore urgency is null.
Met een aantal aandachtspunten wil de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) financiële ondernemingen wijzen op de omgang met cliëntenonderzoek bij politiek prominente personen, politically exposed persons (PEPs). Uit een AFM-onderzoek blijkt dat ondernemingen bijvoorbeeld niet altijd maatwerk verrichten, terwijl elke…
Why this matters
AFM guidance on PEP (politically exposed persons) client due diligence procedures. Addresses AML/financial crime compliance with focus on risk-based approach, avoiding discrimination, proper definitions, outsourcing oversight, and staff training.
The escalation of the Middle East conflict leaves the global economy in a clearly worse state than previously expected. Higher inflation expectations, lower growth and heightened uncertainty are also affecting the financial sector, according to the annual Financial Stability Report from the Dutch Authority for the…
AFM-bestuursvoorzitter Laura van Geest verzorgde op 20 mei de keynote tijdens de AFME Sustainability Conference in Amsterdam.
Why this matters
This is a speech by AFM board chair at AFME Sustainability Conference emphasizing sustainability as economic necessity. It is informational/news content rather than regulatory requirement, hence null urgency.
Een gelijk speelveld, meer duidelijkheid voor marktpartijen, ruimte voor verantwoorde innovatie en een zorgvuldige bescherming van beleggers. Vanuit die visie wil de AFM zorgen voor meer duidelijkheid over beleggingsconcepten, waaronder automatisch herbalanceren en risicoafbouw binnen execution-only. De markt vroeg…
Why this matters
AFM announces regulatory clarification initiative on execution-only investment services, specifically addressing automatic rebalancing and lifecycle investing. This is informational guidance development with consultation expected Q3 2026.
Vanaf 11 oktober 2027 verkort de afwikkelingscyclus voor effectentransacties van T+2 naar T+1. Dit vraagt om aanpassingen in systemen en processen in de hele kapitaalmarktketen. Om de voortgang te monitoren, roept de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) marktpartijen op om twee T+1-gereedheidsenquêtes in te vullen. Het…
Why this matters
AFM announcement regarding T+1 settlement cycle transition (from T+2 to T+1 effective October 11, 2027). Calls for market participants to complete readiness surveys by June 9, 2026.
De Europese Anti-Witwasautoriteit (AMLA) heeft op 12 mei in een persbericht het definitieve eligibility reporting package gepubliceerd en kondigt aan dat zij extra data opvraagt via de nationale toezichthouders. Financiële ondernemingen onder Nederlands toezicht hoeven geen afzonderlijke rapportage volgens het…
Why this matters
AFM announcement clarifying that Dutch financial firms will not receive separate AMLA eligibility reporting requests, as requirements are integrated into existing questionnaires. This is informational guidance on regulatory implementation for anti-money laundering compliance under the new European AMLA framework.
On 12 November 2025, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) issued an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam N.V. (Euronext) due to breach of the rules on providing access for central securities depositories (CSDs). Euronext complied with the instruction. European legislation requires trading venues to provide…
AI Analysis
AFM has issued and published an instruction against Euronext Amsterdam for breaching the **open access obligations under Article 53(1) of CSDR** by imposing restrictive conditions on CSDs’ access to its transaction feeds, linked to a new settlement model. Euronext has withdrawn the conditions and confirmed continued and new access for non‑linked CSDs, signalling that trading venues must ensure any changes to settlement models, default CSDs or connectivity rules do not directly or indirectly restrict non‑discriminatory, transparent CSD access.
Key dates
12 November 2025
- AFM issues an instruction to Euronext Amsterdam for breach of CSDR Article 53(1) open access rules and sets a period for remediation
13 May 2026
- AFM publishes the instruction decision after it becomes irrevocable and confirms that Euronext has remediated by withdrawing the restrictive conditions and confirming continued and new access for CSDs
Suggested considerations
Trading venues must review settlement models, CSD linkage arrangements and related policies to ensure that all conditions for CSD access to transaction feeds are non‑discriminatory, transparent, and fully aligned with Article 53(1) of CSDR.
Compliance and legal teams must identify and remove any contractual or operational provisions that directly or indirectly favour a linked or in‑house CSD over independent or alternative CSDs in terms of access to transaction feeds.
Trading venues must implement internal governance and change‑management controls to ensure that future settlement model changes, including the introduction of a preferred CSD, are subject to ex‑ante compliance review against CSDR open access obligations.
Market infrastructure firms must establish documented criteria and procedures for handling CSD access requests, ensuring these criteria are objective, transparent, and applied consistently to linked and non‑linked CSDs.
Compliance functions should conduct periodic audits of access arrangements, transaction feed connectivity, and any associated fees or technical requirements to confirm that no indirect barriers to CSD access exist.
What changed
- Trading venues subject to CSDR must ensure that access for central securities depositories to transaction feeds is provided on a non‑discriminatory and transparent basis as required by Article...
Conditions or criteria attached to the designation of an alternative CSD (other than a venue’s preferred or “linked” CSD) that have the effect of limiting access to transaction feeds are treated as a...
AFM has clarified, through enforcement, that settlement model changes and associated contractual or operational conditions are within the scope of supervisory scrutiny for compliance with CSDR open...
Euronext has withdrawn three announced conditions that restricted access for certain CSDs and has confirmed continued access for CSDs with existing connectivity to its transaction feeds.
Euronext has also confirmed access for other CSDs that requested access to act as alternative CSDs, establishing a practical expectation that trading venues respond positively to reasonable access...
Compliance impact
Non‑compliance with CSDR open access obligations can lead to formal instructions, ongoing supervisory monitoring, reputational damage through public enforcement decisions, and potentially further sanctions where breaches are not timely remediated. Given the centrality of CSD access to post‑trade infrastructure, persistent breaches may also trigger broader scrutiny of governance, conflicts of interest, and competition concerns.
Het convenant tussen de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) en Stichting DSI over de vakbekwaamheid van beleggingsprofessionals is een efficiënt en effectief instrument binnen het risicogestuurde toezicht van de AFM. Dat is de conclusie van de audit door onderzoeksbureau KWINK groep in opdracht van de AFM. Het…
Why this matters
AFM audit report on DSI covenant for professional competency requirements under MiFID II and Wft. Informational news about covenant effectiveness, renewal plans, and recommendations for improvement. Addresses professional qualification standards for investment professionals at regulated firms.
This is a general newsletter subscription announcement from AFM (Dutch financial regulator) emphasizing their commitment to fair markets and market conduct. It contains no specific regulatory requirements, deadlines, or actionable guidance. Classified as informational/promotional content with null urgency.
Around 800,000 Dutch households have sufficient financial resources to invest but do not do so, even though they may face financial shortfalls in the future. For this group, it may therefore be appropriate to allow their available assets to generate higher returns, in order to strengthen their future financial…
Why this matters
AFM press release on research findings regarding household investment barriers and opportunities. Focuses on consumer protection and conduct by promoting responsible investing while lowering barriers for non-investors. Informational content about regulatory commitment to sustainable financial well-being.
De Europese anti-witwas- en anti-terrorismefinanciering autoriteit (AMLA) is twee openbare consultaties gestart. De ontwerpinstrumenten geven richting aan hoe meldingsplichtige instellingen de risico’s op witwassen en terrorismefinanciering moeten identificeren, beoordelen en beheersen. Hiermee wordt gewerkt aan een…
Why this matters
AMLA launches public consultations on AML-CFT risk assessment guidelines and regulatory technical standards for group-wide minimum requirements. This is informational content announcing consultation periods (deadline May 8, 2026) affecting multiple financial sectors on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism...
Financial institutions are working to make their digital services accessible. This is important, because it ensures that people with disabilities can manage their finances independently. To provide further guidance to the sector, the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) shares expectations and points of attention in…
AI Analysis
AFM’s third EAA update makes clear that Dutch financial institutions must not only fix accessibility gaps, but also **assign clear internal accountability**, **embed accessibility compliance in governance and monitoring**, and **submit more specific non-compliance notifications**. AFM also announced a **sector-wide compliance review in the coming months**, with a focus on whether websites meet WCAG criteria, especially **level A** requirements, so compliance teams should treat this as an active supervisory campaign rather than routine guidance.
Key dates
28 June 2025
- The European Accessibility Act came into force, and Dutch national measures began applying to covered new products and services
Coming months (TBD, est. late 2026) Deadline
- AFM will conduct an accessibility compliance review of the sector, focusing on WCAG compliance, especially level A criteria
23 April 2026 Deadline
- AFM published its third EAA update and announced a forthcoming sector compliance review
Suggested considerations
Firms should map all consumer-facing digital services and identify which websites, apps, and digital documents fall within EAA/WCAG scope.
Firms should assign a named internal owner for accessibility compliance, monitoring, remediation tracking, and regulatory notifications.
Firms should document accessibility risks and remediation plans for each in-scope digital service, including the precise pages, functions, or documents affected.
Firms should embed accessibility checks into design, development, testing, and change-management processes so compliance is monitored continuously.
Firms should review EAA non-compliance notifications and make them more specific, including the exact accessibility issues, affected locations, and remediation status.
What changed
- AFM expects financial institutions to identify accessibility risks in their digital services and implement improvements that meet the required WCAG criteria.
AFM expects firms to embed and monitor accessibility through internal processes, rather than treating accessibility as a one-off remediation project.
AFM is emphasizing clear accountability for safeguarding digital accessibility, which means firms should be able to show who owns accessibility compliance, monitoring, and remediation internally.
AFM says EAA notifications of non-compliance must be more specific, because current submissions often do not describe the exact accessibility issues or where they are located.
AFM has published further instructions on how to answer certain questions in the EAA notification form, indicating a stronger supervisory focus on the quality of regulatory reporting.
Compliance impact
The compliance risk is material because AFM is moving from guidance to active review and may directly challenge firms with shortcomings. In practice, poor documentation, vague notifications, or weak governance can expose firms to supervisory intervention, remediation orders, and escalating scrutiny over the accessibility of consumer-facing channels.
On 20 April 2026, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, Limited Partnership for the systematically incorrect notifications of its net short positions in two companies listed on Euronext Amsterdam. Arrowstreet thus violated the rules on…
AI Analysis
AFM has imposed an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, LP for **systematic underreporting and underdisclosure of net short positions** in two Euronext Amsterdam issuers between July 2020 and November 2024, caused by an error in its short position calculation methodology. The case underscores that AFM expects robust calculation, control and reporting frameworks around short selling, and that repeated methodology errors leading to incorrect notifications and public disclosures will be treated as serious violations of the EU short selling and Dutch transparency regimes, even where firms later cooperate.
Key dates
July 2020
– Start of the period in which Arrowstreet’s incorrect calculation methodology led to systematically incorrect net short position notifications to AFM and underdisclosures to the public
November 2024
– End of the period during which Arrowstreet violated short selling rules through inaccurate notifications and disclosures of its net short positions in Just Eat Takeaway.com and Galapagos
20 April 2026
– AFM imposes an administrative fine of €297,000 on Arrowstreet Capital, LP for the systematic incorrect notifications and underdisclosures of net short positions
22 April 2026
– AFM publishes the enforcement notice stating that the case has been settled via a simplified procedure and is closed
Suggested considerations
Review and document the firm’s methodology for calculating net short positions in EU‑listed shares, ensuring alignment with the EU Short Selling Regulation and AFM’s thresholds and definitions, including aggregation rules and treatment of derivatives.
Perform a comprehensive back‑testing and reconciliation of historical and current net short position calculations against trade data, positions and corporate actions to identify any systemic discrepancies or underreporting risks.
Implement or enhance controls that validate short position calculations prior to submission, including independent second‑line checks, exception reporting, and automated variance checks for large movements or threshold breaches.
Map all AFM short selling notification and disclosure thresholds and timing requirements into the firm’s surveillance and reporting systems, ensuring automated alerts when positions reach, exceed or fall below relevant levels.
Establish robust governance over short selling reporting, including clear ownership between trading, operations, risk and compliance, formal sign‑off procedures, and regular reporting to senior management on short‑selling compliance.
What changed
- AFM has reaffirmed strict enforcement of notification and disclosure obligations for net short positions in shares admitted to trading on Euronext Amsterdam, including the expectation of accurate...
The case confirms AFM’s interpretation that systematic underreporting (wrong figures in 101 notifications) and underdisclosure to the public (wrong figures in 85 cases) constitutes a material breach...
AFM emphasises that net short positions must be notified promptly and accurately, and that disclosures above the public threshold are a key tool for market participants to understand negative...
AFM demonstrates that self‑reporting, prompt correction, full cooperation and remediation can result in a reduced fine and simplified settlement, signalling a clear incentive structure for firms to...
The publication reinforces that AFM will use the short selling register and underlying notifications to monitor for market abuse, market distortion and systemic risks, increasing scrutiny on firms...
Compliance impact
Non‑compliance with AFM short selling notification and disclosure obligations can result in significant administrative fines, reputational damage, and heightened supervisory scrutiny, particularly where errors are systemic or affect numerous notifications. AFM’s willingness to reduce the fine in this case was contingent on proactive self‑reporting and remediation, but the underlying violations still triggered a sizeable penalty and public enforcement notice.