This amendment bill systematically replaces references to “regulations” in the AML/CFT Act with “rules made under section 156B” (and related notices under new section references) and converts many references from “an AML/CFT supervisor” to “the AML/CFT supervisor.” It also inserts and redirects several specific powers to notices under new section numbers (156C, 156E, 156F, 156G), updates form and approval language, and removes the word “relevant” in numerous places.
Those are surgical changes on the statute’s face, but they change the locus of detailed rulemaking: detailed operational requirements that were previously left to regulations now point to rules or notices tied to the supervisor or to newly referenced rulemaking provisions. For compliance teams and supervisors this alters where, and by whom, binding operational detail will be published — with implications for oversight, parliamentary scrutiny, and how quickly technical obligations can change.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces many statutory references to minister-made regulations with references to rules or notices made under newly cited sections (156B, 156C, 156E, 156F, 156G), and standardises references to “the AML/CFT supervisor” across the Act. It also creates a specific exemption route for reporting entities by notice and tightens form/approval language.
Who It Affects
AML/CFT supervisors, reporting entities (banks, financial institutions, designated businesses), compliance officers, and the Ministry responsible for AML/CFT policy. Legal teams and Parliament will be affected because the instrument type and approval pathway for technical requirements change.
Why It Matters
Shifting from regulations to supervisor-issued rules and notices changes the constitutional and administrative framing of many obligations: rules may allow faster, more technical updates but typically attract less direct parliamentary oversight than regulations. That shift affects how industry monitors obligations and how democratic accountability over detailed requirements operates.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Across the Act the bill swaps the word “regulations” for references to “rules made under section 156B” (and for some items, notices made under newly referenced sections). Practically, that means detailed prescriptions — what reporting entities must collect, how forms are structured, and some procedural duties — will be grounded in rules or notices rather than statutory regulations.
The change is repetitive in the text because it affects many operational provisions, not because it creates many new kinds of obligations.
The bill also replaces many occurrences of “an AML/CFT supervisor” with the definite phrase “the AML/CFT supervisor.” In many places this is a drafting clean-up that clarifies which supervisory actor is intended. In effect it reads the statute as directing responsibilities and powers to the designated supervisor role in a singular and consistent way, rather than implying multiple or any supervisor in a broader sense.Two specific mechanism changes stand out.
First, section 27(3) is replaced to allow a reporting entity to be exempted, by notice under section 156E or 156F, from providing some or all of the information otherwise required for a specified transfer or transaction. Second, a number of provisions that previously depended on regulations are redirected to other delegated instruments: e.g., rules under section 156C for particular transitional or grouping matters, and notices under 156F/156G for other procedures.
The bill also tightens procedural wording about approved forms and removes repeated qualifiers such as “relevant,” simplifying several clauses.Taken together, the amendment restructures the Act’s delegated-instrument architecture: it channels operational detail into supervisor-facing rules and notices and removes multiple textual ambiguities. That will change how obligations are published, how quickly they can change, and which body is responsible for the fine print — all practical matters for compliance teams who must track and apply the Act day-to-day.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the term “regulations” with “rules made under section 156B” (or similar rule/notice references) across scores of substantive provisions, redirecting where prescriptive legal detail will sit.
Section 27(3) is replaced to permit exemptions from information-reporting requirements by notice under section 156E or 156F for specified transfers or transactions.
Numerous clauses change “an AML/CFT supervisor” to “the AML/CFT supervisor,” consolidating references to a single, defined supervisory role throughout the Act.
The bill converts some delegated-instrument references to notices under new sections (156E, 156F, 156G) and to rules under section 156C — creating multiple supervisor/notice pathways for procedural and exemption matters.
It repeals subsections 137(2)–(5), removes many occurrences of the qualifier “relevant,” and renames a heading to “Role of Ministry,” signalising housekeeping and potential shifts in who performs certain statutory tasks.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Redirects regulatory detail into rules or notices
This cluster of amendments consistently replaces references to “regulations” with “rules made under section 156B,” or with notices under specified new sections (156E/F/G) or rules under 156C where indicated. Functionally, provisions that once pointed to regulations as the place for technical requirements will now point to rulemaking under the Act’s specified rulemaking sections. For practitioners this means the operational particulars — data, form requirements, procedural steps — will be published as rules or notices tied to the AML/CFT supervisor’s statutory rulemaking powers rather than as ministerial regulations. That affects how those instruments are made, consulted on, and scrutinised.
Exemption by notice for specified transfers or transactions
The substituted text for section 27(3) allows a reporting entity to be exempted, via notice under section 156E or 156F, from providing some or all of the information otherwise mandated. This creates a clear, delegated pathway for targeted exemptions (for example, particular transaction types or transfer corridors). Operationally, affected entities will need to watch notices under those sections for both exemptions and any conditions attached to them.
Standardising the supervisory reference to a single supervisor
By converting indefinite references to a definite article the bill narrows the statutory reference to the designated AML/CFT supervisor. In practice this clarifies that the duties and powers are intended to attach to the formally appointed supervisor (the statutory office/entity), rather than generically to any supervisor. For administrative law this reduces ambiguity about who may exercise specific powers, but it also invites scrutiny of how “the AML/CFT supervisor” is identified and whether any sectoral or multiple-supervisor arrangements remain permitted under other parts of the Act.
Information disclosure and approved-form mechanics
Section 48 is reworded to state more directly that “The AML/CFT supervisor may disclose personal information about employees or senior managers obtained in the performance and exercise of its functions and powers.” Section 48A’s reference to regulations is moved to notices under 156F, while section 48B adjusts approved-form language and points to rules under 156C for certain items. Those changes tighten how forms are approved and how personal information disclosure authority is described, shifting details to supervisor-issued rules and notices rather than regulations.
Drafting clean-up that signals institutional focus
The bill renames a cross-heading to “Role of Ministry,” adds “and levies” alongside Regulations in another heading, and in section 158 replaces plural “Ministers” and “supervisors” with singular terms. Those changes are largely housekeeping, but they indicate a tightening of who performs specific statutory functions and an explicit linkage between levy administration and the rules/regulatory architecture.
Repeal of subsections and related clarifications
The bill repeals subsections 137(2)–(5) and converts other references in section 137 to the singular supervisor. The repeal removes a block of statutory material; because the bill text does not reproduce the repealed content, affected parties will need to cross-check the original Act to determine what operational powers or constraints have been removed. The overall pattern, however, is consistent: fewer plural references and more reliance on supervisor-issued instruments.
Clean-up of qualifiers and form/approval vocabulary
The bill deletes the qualifier “relevant” in a number of places and replaces “prescribed” with “approved” where forms or methods are concerned. Those edits reduce redundancy in the text and shift emphasis from statutory prescription to an approval mechanism — consistent with the broader redirection of detail into rules and supervisor approvals.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The AML/CFT supervisor — gains clearer statutory primacy: standardised singular references and explicit rule/notice pathways concentrate operational design and discretion.
- Reporting entities with strong regulator relationships — may benefit from faster, more technical updates via supervisor rules and notices that can be tailored and changed without the full regulations process.
- The Ministry (policy owners) — a renamed cross-heading and clarified levy references create clearer lines for ministry involvement in policy and levy administration.
- Compliance teams at regulated firms — receive clearer pointers to where to find operational detail (rules/notices rather than scattered regulations), potentially simplifying document tracking if rules are well-published and versioned.
Who Bears the Cost
- Reporting entities with limited supervisory engagement — face risk that rules/notices change more quickly and with less parliamentary visibility, increasing compliance monitoring costs.
- Parliamentary oversight and select committees — lose some instrument-level scrutiny because rules and notices typically attract different levels of legislative oversight than regulations.
- Smaller supervisors or sector specialists (if any remain) — may see diminished statutory footing if the Act is read as centralising powers in a single supervisor role.
- Legal and compliance advisers — must re-map compliance obligations from the Regulations framework into a new matrix of rules, notices, and approvals, which raises short-term advisory and implementation costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades off parliamentary and ministerial oversight for administrative agility and clearer supervisory responsibility: putting technical requirements into supervisor-made rules and notices allows faster, more specialised updates but reduces the visibility and traditional scrutiny that come with regulations, raising the question of how to balance responsiveness against democratic accountability.
The central operational effect of the amendments is allocation: moving granular operational requirements out of the regulations bucket and into rules and notices linked to the AML/CFT supervisor. That is administratively efficient — rules and notices can be more technical and quicker to update — but it also changes accountability pathways.
Regulations are typically subject to a defined level of ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny; rules or supervisor-issued notices may have different consultation and disallowance mechanics, depending on how section 156B and the newly referenced sections are drafted and published. Whether this produces better governance or reduced oversight depends on those procedural safeguards, which are not visible in the amendment text alone.
A second tension is centralisation. The change to “the AML/CFT supervisor” reduces ambiguity but may concentrate power.
If the Act previously accommodated multiple supervisors with sectoral expertise, the new drafting could be read to prioritise a single supervisory model. That has implications for sector-specific policy tailoring and for how expertise is embedded into supervisory decisions.
Finally, the repeal of section 137(2)–(5) is opaque in the amendment instrument: without cross-referencing the original Act it’s hard to measure which guardrails or powers were removed. Practitioners should cross-check the current statute to identify any eliminated procedural protections or obligations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.