0508Reports to the FIU
Reporting engages the entity's liability and protects whoever reports, but only if the filing actually happened and can be proved. Everything that follows comes from that sentence.
01The channel
The financial intelligence unit stopped accepting email on 1 October 2024, and paper with it; the old portal had already closed. Filing happens only in goAML, once the reporting entity is enrolled.
This is not a configuration choice: the platform has no sending path to an authority, and the type describing a filing channel has no email value. No tenant can type an authority's address, because who an authority is, through which channel and on what legal basis, is regulatory fact and lives in code, not in a table.
Your enrolment: the authority you are registered with, your goAML reporting entity identifier and the contact person. Nothing else, because nothing else is yours.
02Life cycle
There is deliberately no state between ready and filed: a filing without its acknowledgement is not a filing anyone could prove.
Being written. The narrative, the typology indicators and the transaction at stake, where there is one.
Validated against the schema and generated. Reaching this state is refused while any detail the authority requires is missing from the file.
Filed in goAML, with the acknowledgement reference recorded. Without that reference the state is not reached.
03What the acknowledgement carries
The reporter's immunity rests on the filing having happened. The reference the authority returns is the evidence of that fact, so the platform treats it as an exhibit rather than a convenience field.
04Completeness
A filing rejected for a missing field is wasted time and one deadline less. So the platform compares what the authority requires against what your database holds, and refuses to mark the report ready while anything is missing.
The most frequent gaps come from what the client model does not natively carry: a company record has no date of birth, an identity verification does not keep the document number.
05The disclosure ban
The ban on disclosure is not satisfied by hiding a button. It was translated into four technical decisions, because a page answering access denied has already revealed there was something to deny.
A colleague must not be able to read a report, nor even suspect that one exists.
Technical decision
Its own permission resource, refused to the member and guest roles, reading included.
A page answering access denied has already revealed there was something to deny.
Technical decision
The screens concerned answer page not found, never access denied.
An internal notification would carry the information outside the authorised circle.
Technical decision
Moving the file to transmitted emits no domain event.
The audit trail is readable far more widely than the reports.
Technical decision
The subject's name stays out of the trail's titles.
We respect your privacy
We use cookies that are essential to running the site and, with your consent, audience-measurement cookies (hosted in the EU) to improve our services. Learn more.
