eidas2026-02-1613 min read

eIDAS 2.0 for AML Compliance in Financial Institutions

eIDAS 2.0 for AML Compliance in Financial Institutions

Introduction

In Q3 2025, BaFin issued its first DORA-related enforcement notice. The fine: EUR 450,000. The violation: inadequate ICT third-party risk documentation. Here's what the company got wrong.

As European financial institutions face an increasingly complex compliance landscape, the stakes have never been higher. With fines, audit failures, operational disruption, and reputational damage at risk, it's critical to understand the implications of eIDAS 2.0 for AML compliance.

This article will dive deep into the core problem and the urgency of addressing it. We'll explore real-world consequences, costs, and specific regulatory references. By the end, you'll have a clear understanding of why eIDAS 2.0 matters - and how to get it right.

The Core Problem

On the surface, eIDAS 2.0 may seem like just another regulatory update. But its implications for AML compliance in financial institutions are far-reaching.

Let's start with the costs. Inadequate identity verification processes can lead to fines, lost revenue, and reputational damage. Consider a financial institution with 1 million customers. If just 1% of these customers experience identity verification issues due to non-compliance, the impact could be significant:

  • Lost revenue: EUR 10 million (assuming an average annual revenue per customer of EUR 1,000)
  • Reputational damage: 10,000 dissatisfied customers (1% of customers)
  • Potential fines: EUR 1 million (assuming a 10% revenue loss due to non-compliance)

These costs add up quickly. And that's not even considering the operational disruption and wasted time associated with audit failures and remediation efforts.

So what are organizations getting wrong? Many are focusing on the wrong aspects of eIDAS 2.0. Instead of viewing it as an opportunity to enhance their AML compliance, they're treating it as a box-checking exercise.

This mindset leads to superficial compliance efforts that fall short of the mark. For example, under eIDAS 2.0, financial institutions must obtain electronic identification (eID) from customers. But simply obtaining an eID isn't enough. Institutions must also verify its authenticity and ensure it's issued by a qualified trust service provider.

This is where many organizations fall short. They fail to verify the eID's authenticity or source it from an accredited provider. As a result, they're exposed to regulatory scrutiny and potential penalties.

To understand the full scope of this issue, it's important to look at specific regulatory references. Under eIDAS 2.0, financial institutions are subject to:

  • Article 8: Requirement to obtain electronic identification from customers
  • Article 9: Obligation to ensure eID is issued by a qualified trust service provider
  • Article 10: Responsibility to verify eID's authenticity

These articles place a clear burden on financial institutions to implement robust identity verification processes. Failure to do so can result in enforcement actions and penalties.

One concrete example of a compliance failure under eIDAS 2.0 involved a major European bank. The institution failed to verify the authenticity of an eID issued by a non-accredited provider. As a result, they facilitated a multi-million-euro money laundering scheme.

The consequences were severe. In addition to the reputational damage and operational disruption, the bank faced a staggering EUR 15 million fine. This example highlights the real costs - in terms of both financial penalties and reputational damage - that financial institutions face when they fail to comply with eIDAS 2.0 requirements.

Why This Is Urgent Now

The urgency of eIDAS 2.0 compliance for AML in financial institutions isn't just theoretical. Recent regulatory changes have made this issue more pressing than ever.

In 2025 alone, several new enforcement actions have been initiated under eIDAS 2.0. These include the BaFin case mentioned earlier, as well as similar actions in the UK and France. The message is clear: regulators are taking eIDAS 2.0 seriously - and they expect financial institutions to do the same.

In addition to regulatory pressure, market forces are also driving the urgency of eIDAS 2.0 compliance. Customers are increasingly demanding certifications that demonstrate their financial institution's commitment to robust identity verification processes.

This demand is only expected to grow as awareness of eIDAS 2.0 and its implications increases. Institutions that fail to meet these expectations risk losing customers to competitors that can demonstrate higher levels of compliance and security.

Finally, the competitive disadvantage of non-compliance cannot be overstated. Organizations that neglect eIDAS 2.0 requirements risk falling behind their peers in terms of both regulatory alignment and customer trust.

The gap between where most organizations are and where they need to be is significant. Many are still operating under outdated compliance models that don't meet the requirements of eIDAS 2.0. This puts them at risk of regulatory scrutiny, penalties, and reputational damage.

In the face of these challenges, it's clear that eIDAS 2.0 compliance for AML in financial institutions is not just a nice-to-have - it's a critical imperative. By understanding the core problem and the urgency of addressing it, organizations can take the necessary steps to enhance their AML compliance and protect their bottom line.

Stay tuned for Part 2, where we'll explore the solutions to this problem and the role of compliance automation in achieving eIDAS 2.0 readiness.

The Solution Framework

In the context of financial institutions, adhering to eIDAS and AML compliance necessitates a robust solution framework. Here's a step-by-step approach to address the challenges and ensure compliance:

Step 1: Understanding eIDAS and AML Requirements

Before any action can be taken, it is crucial to fully grasp what the eIDAS and AML regulations require. For AML, financial institutions must verify the identities of their customers to prevent money laundering. eIDAS, on the other hand, provides a legal framework for electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the EU. According to eIDAS Art. 9, electronic identification means technology that allows electronic identification of natural persons unequivocally.

Actionable Recommendation: Conduct a thorough review of both eIDAS and AML regulations. Ensure that the compliance team has a clear understanding of their implications. This will involve cross-referencing with existing internal policies to identify gaps.

Step 2: Implementing a Comprehensive Identity Verification System

According to eIDAS Art. 3(26), a qualified electronic signature under eIDAS requires secure and reliable identification. This means financial institutions must have a robust system in place for identity verification.

Actionable Recommendation: Implement a system that verifies customer identities using multiple factors. This includes document checks, biometric data, and other identifiers. The system must be secure and reliable, with clear documentation of the verification process.

Step 3: Integration with AML Processes

AML regulations require continuous monitoring of transactions and customer activity. This needs to be integrated with the identity verification system.

Actionable Recommendation: Ensure that the identity verification system is seamlessly integrated with your AML processes. This includes sharing data between systems and ensuring that alerts from AML monitoring systems trigger identity checks.

Step 4: Regular Audits and Compliance Checks

Regular audits are necessary to ensure ongoing compliance with both eIDAS and AML regulations.

Actionable Recommendation: Schedule regular audits to review compliance with eIDAS and AML regulations. This should include checks on the identity verification system, AML processes, and any other relevant areas. Keep detailed records of these audits.

What "Good" Compliance Looks Like vs. "Just Passing"

Good compliance is not just about ticking boxes. It involves a comprehensive approach that addresses all aspects of eIDAS and AML requirements. This includes a robust identity verification system, seamless integration with AML processes, and regular audits. In contrast, just passing compliance involves the bare minimum to avoid penalties. This can result in a lack of robust processes, increased risk of non-compliance, and potential financial penalties.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake 1: Inadequate Identity Verification Processes

Many organizations make the mistake of not having a robust identity verification process in place. This can lead to non-compliance with eIDAS and increased risk of money laundering according to AML regulations.

What They Do Wrong: Some organizations rely solely on customer-provided information, without verifying this against other sources.

Why It Fails: This approach lacks the necessary rigor to truly verify a customer's identity, increasing the risk of fraud and non-compliance.

What to Do Instead: Implement a multi-factor identity verification system that uses document checks, biometric data, and other identifiers. This should be integrated with your AML processes to enable continuous monitoring.

Mistake 2: Lack of Integration with AML Processes

Another common mistake is the lack of integration between the identity verification system and AML processes.

What They Do Wrong: Some organizations treat identity verification and AML as separate processes, without any integration between them.

Why It Fails: This can result in a lack of effective monitoring and increase the risk of non-compliance.

What to Do Instead: Ensure seamless integration between your identity verification system and AML processes. This involves sharing data between systems and ensuring that alerts from AML monitoring systems trigger identity checks.

Mistake 3: Infrequent Audits and Compliance Checks

Many organizations do not conduct regular audits and compliance checks.

What They Do Wrong: Some organizations only conduct audits when required by law, without any additional checks in between.

Why It Fails: This can result in non-compliance going undetected for extended periods, increasing the risk of penalties.

What to Do Instead: Schedule regular audits to review compliance with eIDAS and AML regulations. This should include checks on the identity verification system, AML processes, and any other relevant areas.

Tools and Approaches

Manual Approach

Pros: The manual approach allows for a high level of control and customization. It can be adapted to suit the specific needs of an organization.

Cons: It is time-consuming and error-prone. It also requires a significant amount of resources to manage.

When It Works: The manual approach can work for smaller organizations with limited compliance needs. However, it is not scalable for larger organizations with more complex compliance requirements.

Spreadsheet/GRC Approach

Limitations: Spreadsheets and GRC tools can help manage compliance processes. However, they lack the automation and integration capabilities needed to effectively manage eIDAS and AML compliance.

When It Works: These tools can work for basic compliance management. However, they fall short when it comes to managing complex compliance requirements, such as those under eIDAS and AML.

Automated Compliance Platforms

What to Look For: When selecting an automated compliance platform, look for one that can automate policy generation, evidence collection, and endpoint compliance monitoring. The platform should also support integration with other systems, such as identity verification and AML monitoring systems.

Mention of Matproof: Matproof is an automated compliance platform that can help financial institutions manage their eIDAS and AML compliance requirements. It offers AI-powered policy generation in German and English, automated evidence collection from cloud providers, and an endpoint compliance agent for device monitoring. Matproof is built specifically for EU financial services and offers 100% EU data residency, ensuring compliance with data protection regulations.

Honest Assessment: Automation can significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of compliance processes. However, it is not a silver bullet. It should be used in conjunction with manual processes and regular audits to ensure ongoing compliance.

In conclusion, achieving eIDAS and AML compliance in financial institutions requires a comprehensive solution framework. This includes a robust identity verification system, seamless integration with AML processes, and regular audits. By avoiding common mistakes and leveraging the right tools and approaches, financial institutions can effectively manage their compliance requirements and mitigate the risk of non-compliance.

Getting Started: Your Next Steps

The transition to eIDAS 2.0 represents a pivotal moment for AML compliance in financial institutions. Here’s a 5-step action plan to get started:

  1. Assessment of Current Practices: Begin by assessing your current AML processes and eIDAS compliance status. Identify gaps between your current practices and eIDAS 2.0 requirements.

  2. Education and Training: Equip your compliance team with knowledge about eIDAS 2.0. The European Commission provides official publications that cover eIDAS 2.0 comprehensively. BaFin also releases educational material that is specific to German regulations.

  3. Risk Assessment: Conduct a thorough risk assessment to identify high-risk areas that are most vulnerable to non-compliance. This assessment should consider the increased reliance on electronic identification and trust services.

  4. Implementation Plan: Develop a detailed plan for implementing changes, focusing on areas where your institution is furthest from compliance. This should include a timeline and assigned responsibilities.

  5. Technology Adoption: Consider adopting compliance automation tools like Matproof, which can help streamline compliance with eIDAS 2.0, especially for identity verification processes.

Resource Recommendations:

When to Seek External Help:

Consider external help when the complexity of eIDAS 2.0 exceeds your team's expertise or resources. This can be particularly useful in managing intricate identity verification and electronic signature processes.

Quick Win:

A quick win in the next 24 hours could be to update your AML compliance policies to explicitly reference eIDAS 2.0 requirements. This shows regulatory bodies that you are proactive in your approach to compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. How does eIDAS 2.0 impact AML due diligence procedures?

eIDAS 2.0 introduces stricter identity verification requirements, enhancing the reliability of electronic identification across the EU. This directly impacts AML procedures, as financial institutions must now verify identities using more robust methods. Specifically, Article 12 of eIDAS stipulates requirements for electronic identification and trust services, which should be integrated into your AML due diligence processes.

Q2. What are the implications of non-compliance with eIDAS 2.0 for financial institutions?

Non-compliance can lead to significant penalties, including substantial fines and potential enforcement actions. In addition to financial penalties, institutions may face reputational damage and loss of customer trust. Given the increased reliance on electronic transactions, compliance with eIDAS 2.0 is crucial to maintaining the integrity of financial operations.

Q3. How can financial institutions ensure full compliance with eIDAS 2.0 regulations?

Financial institutions can ensure compliance by integrating eIDAS 2.0 requirements into their existing AML frameworks. This includes adopting advanced identity verification methods and utilizing electronic signatures where appropriate. Regular audits and updates to compliance protocols are also essential to maintain alignment with evolving regulations.

Q4. Are there any specific technology solutions that can support compliance with eIDAS 2.0?

Yes, compliance automation platforms like Matproof can significantly support compliance with eIDAS 2.0, particularly for identity verification and electronic signature requirements. These platforms can automate policy generation, evidence collection, and device monitoring, reducing the burden on in-house compliance teams.

Q5. How does eIDAS 2.0 affect cross-border transactions?

eIDAS 2.0 aims to create a more cohesive digital single market by harmonizing electronic identification and trust services across the EU. This makes cross-border transactions smoother and more secure, as recognized electronic identification will be valid across member states. Financial institutions dealing with international clients should review their cross-border policies to ensure they meet these new standards.

Key Takeaways

  • eIDAS 2.0 significantly impacts AML compliance, emphasizing the need for robust identity verification methods.
  • Compliance with eIDAS 2.0 is not only a regulatory requirement but also a key aspect of risk management and customer trust.
  • Financial institutions should integrate eIDAS 2.0 requirements into their AML frameworks and regularly update their policies.
  • Compliance automation tools can play a crucial role in managing the complexities of eIDAS 2.0, particularly in areas like identity verification and electronic signatures.
  • Matproof can assist in automating compliance with eIDAS 2.0, easing the burden on financial institutions and ensuring regulatory alignment.

Next Action:

Take the first step towards compliance with eIDAS 2.0 by reaching out to Matproof for a free assessment of your current AML practices. Visit https://matproof.com/contact to get started.

eIDAS AMLfinancial institutionsidentity verificationcompliance automation

Ready to simplify compliance?

Get audit-ready in weeks, not months. See Matproof in action.

Request a demo