Gatekeeper professions – from law firms and accounting practices to estate agents and trust service providers – face increasingly difficult compliance terrain.
As financial crime risks intensify and digital services expand, these professionals must satisfy stringent AML and CTF rules, while also adhering to complex data protection frameworks such as GDPR, claims Arctic Intelligence.
The clash between these requirements is creating regulatory grey zones that demand careful navigation.
AML law places specific demands on regulated entities, requiring them to identify clients, verify identities, profile risk and keep detailed evidence of these checks. Client due diligence (CDD), enhanced screening for high-risk individuals, and mandatory suspicious matter reporting (SMR) all form part of the compliance framework. These obligations exist globally and are backed by international standards, meaning that authorities expect gatekeepers to collect, monitor and retain extensive personal and financial data.
Conversely, data protection rules aim to limit how much information is gathered and how it is handled. GDPR’s principles are grounded in data minimisation, purpose limitation, transparency and strong data subject rights. Individuals reserve the right to access, challenge or delete data, which can conflict directly with AML expectations. Organisations are obliged to justify a lawful basis for storing personal information and must restrict processing to what is necessary.
These opposing priorities create significant friction. AML law requires storing identity records for years, but GDPR discourages unnecessary retention. Regulators require sharing information with financial intelligence authorities, yet data protection rules place tight constraints on disclosure and transfer. Even client rights become contentious: AML law prevents notifying clients of suspicious reports, while privacy law normally entitles individuals to be informed about the handling of their data.
To navigate these challenges, firms are increasingly adopting a risk-based model. Collecting only what is essential for CDD, applying enhanced checks only for truly high-risk clients, and avoiding excessive document retention are becoming best practice. Clear retention policies can reconcile record-keeping obligations with deletion expectations, provided they are transparent and time-bound.
Communication is also vital. Clients must know what data will be collected, how it will be used and when it may be disclosed. Privacy notices that clearly explain statutory AML duties can reduce misunderstandings and improve trust. Professionals also need processes that prevent unnecessary access to personal data and ensure that disclosures for suspicious activity remain narrow and targeted.
In cases where privacy rights conflict with AML record-keeping laws – for example, when a client invokes the right to be forgotten – organisations often require legal advice to apply exemptions lawfully. The balance must be handled carefully to avoid breaching either regulatory regime.
The tension between AML mandates and data privacy regimes is unlikely to disappear. As regulators tighten expectations on both sides, gatekeepers must refine governance, invest in compliance technology and continually update procedures. Those that master the balance will be best placed to protect financial integrity while upholding fundamental privacy rights.
Find more on RegTech Analyst.
Read the daily FinTech news
Copyright © 2025 FinTech Global
