Law Nº. 8/26 of 19 August was published, amending Articles 3, 14, 60-A and 82 of Law Nº. 5/20 of 27 January, which establishes the legal framework for the prevention and combating of money laundering, terrorist financing and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The amendment essentially seeks to strengthen the compliance of the Angolan legal framework with applicable international standards and to introduce certain adjustments regarding the identification of Politically Exposed Persons, enhanced due diligence measures, the autonomy of the Financial Intelligence Unit and the legal framework applicable to the offence of money laundering.
From a comparative perspective, the main amendments are highlighted below:
Article 3 — Politically Exposed Persons
Law Nº. 8/26 maintains the structure and core concept of Politically Exposed Persons (“PEPs”) set out in Law Nº. 5/20, while introducing, however, a significant extension regarding the period during which the relevant public functions were held and, in particular, the scope of family members covered.
Under the previous wording, the concept covered national or foreign individuals who held or had held prominent public functions as provided for under Law Nº. 5/20.
The new wording expressly provides that PEPs include individuals who hold or have held such functions for at least 12 months, in Angola, in another country or jurisdiction, or in an International Organisation.
A new provision has also been introduced regarding family members of PEPs. In addition to the persons already covered by the previous wording, the following are now expressly included:
- ascendants and descendants of the PEP; and
- spouses or “de facto” partners of the PEP’s ascendants and descendants.
This amendment therefore expands the scope of persons who must be taken into account for identification and risk assessment purposes.
Article 14 — Enhanced Due Diligence Measures
Law Nº. 8/26 maintains the principle that enhanced due diligence measures apply in situations involving increased risk, while introducing three new paragraphs — paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 — which further develop and provide greater flexibility to the regime previously in force.
New paragraph 7 provides that the application of the measures set out in former paragraph 5 does not prevent the adoption of other enhanced measures or the intensification of the measures already provided for, whenever the specific risk associated with the business relationship or occasional transaction is particularly high.
New paragraph 8 further allows obliged entities, subject to sector-specific regulatory authorisation aligned with domestic legislation and international best practices, to reduce the intensity or frequency of enhanced due diligence measures applicable to PEPs, where the relevant risks have been sufficiently identified, assessed or mitigated.
Finally, paragraph 9, also newly introduced, grants supervisory and inspection authorities the power to determine the specific content of enhanced measures appropriate to the risks identified.
Accordingly, the main amendment to Article 14 lies in the introduction of a more explicit risk-based approach, allowing the intensity of measures applicable to PEPs to be adjusted according to the specific risk involved, without prejudice to the possibility of strengthening such measures where that risk is high.
Article 60-A — Financial Intelligence Unit
Law Nº. 8/26 introduces a new Article 60-A, specifically addressing the legal nature of the Financial Intelligence Unit (“FIU”), consolidating and further developing matters which, under Law Nº. 5/20, were essentially addressed in Article 61 (Powers) and Article 62 (Autonomy and Independence of the Financial Intelligence Unit).
First, the new provision expressly qualifies the FIU as a public legal person, endowed with administrative, financial and asset autonomy, a characteristic which was not expressly provided for under Law Nº. 5/20.
In line with former Article 62, the FIU’s autonomy in the performance of its functions is maintained, with the law now expressly referring to its operational, functional and technical autonomy, as well as to the absence of unlawful interference by other bodies or entities.
From a financial perspective, Law Nº. 8/26 introduces a new provision establishing that the FIU constitutes a budgetary unit, with a specific budget allocation intended to ensure the conditions necessary for its organisation and operation. This matter was not expressly addressed in Law Nº. 5/20, which merely provided, within the scope of the FIU’s autonomy and independence, that it should have sufficient financial, human and technical resources to perform its functions.
On the other hand, the new wording maintains the decision-making autonomy already provided for under former Article 62(3) regarding the analysis, requesting and dissemination of information, while expressly extending such autonomy to decisions concerning the submission of communications to the competent authorities, without the need for prior authorisation from any entity.
Accordingly, the main amendment does not lie in the creation ex novo of the FIU’s autonomy, which was already provided for under Law Nº. 5/20, but rather in the strengthening and further development of its institutional, financial and functional status, with particular emphasis on its qualification as a public legal person, its administrative, financial and asset autonomy, and the existence of its own budget allocation.
Article 82 — Money Laundering Offence
Some of the most significant substantive amendments are introduced in Article 82.
Covered conduct
Paragraph 1(a) has been reformulated and now expressly provides that the conduct may consist of converting, transferring, assisting or facilitating, directly or indirectly, conversion or transfer transactions involving assets derived from crimes, where carried out with the purpose of concealing their unlawful origin or avoiding the criminal prosecution of the perpetrator or participant.
The new wording therefore introduces a broader formulation of the conduct involving the conversion and transfer of assets.
Acquisition, possession or use of assets
Paragraph 1(c) has likewise been reformulated. Under the previous wording, the provision referred to the acquisition, possession or use of “property or rights relating to property”, requiring the perpetrator to have knowledge, “at the time of receipt”, that such property derived from the commission of the offences referred to in paragraph 4.
The new wording replaces the reference to “property” with “assets or rights relating to such assets” and, more importantly, expands the relevant point in time for assessing knowledge of the unlawful origin, which is now linked to the “acquisition, possession or use” of the assets.
Accordingly, the amendment no longer expressly limits knowledge of the unlawful origin to the time when the property is received, but instead encompasses the different stages at which the assets are acquired, held or used.
Participation and other forms of involvement
In paragraph 2, the amendment introduced by Law Nº. 8/26 is limited and concerns the conjunction used between the acts of “facilitating” and “directing” the commission of the offence. Whereas the previous wording referred to “facilitating and directing”, the new wording provides for “facilitating or directing”.
Although this is a relatively narrow textual amendment, replacing “and” with “or” allows these two forms of conduct to be regarded as alternative, meaning that, in principle, their cumulative occurrence is no longer required for the provision to apply.
Concept of advantages
Paragraph 3 has been reformulated, replacing the reference to “property” with “assets” derived from the commission of the underlying offences of money laundering.
The new wording also further defines the concept of advantages, expressly providing that these include not only the assets derived from the underlying offences, but also property acquired directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, with such assets, including the advantages resulting from their transformation, conversion or reinvestment.
The amendment therefore introduces a broader formulation of the concept of advantages, expressly covering benefits or assets resulting, even indirectly, from the transformation or application of assets of unlawful origin.
Underlying offences for money laundering purposes
Paragraph 4 has been reformulated, maintaining the requirement that the underlying offences must be punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment of at least six months.
The new wording, however, removes the previous reference to “all typical unlawful acts”, replacing it with the broader term “offences”, and expressly adds two requirements: that the offences be committed by any person and that they be capable of generating economic benefits or profits.
The amendment therefore constitutes a clarification and further definition of the concept of an underlying offence.
Autonomy of the money laundering offence from the underlying offence
Paragraph 6 undergoes a substantive amendment, moving from a provision concerning non-punishability to an express rule establishing the independent punishability of money laundering conduct.
Under the previous wording, the offences provided for in the article were not punishable where, at the time of their commission, there was no longer a claim for confiscation of the advantages, including as a result of an amnesty, limitation of criminal proceedings or failure to file a complaint within the applicable time limit, where a complaint was required.
The new wording removes this non-punishability rule and, conversely, establishes that the conduct provided for in paragraph 1 is punishable regardless of the procedural or substantive status of the underlying offence.
For this purpose, the law now expressly covers situations where the perpetrator of the underlying offence is unknown, cannot be identified, cannot be located, is legally incapable, deceased, benefits from immunity or cannot be tried for any other reason [paragraph 6(a)], as well as situations where the relevant criminal proceedings have not been initiated, cannot continue or have been extinguished, including due to limitation, amnesty, pardon, remission or withdrawal of a complaint or report [paragraph 6(b)].
New paragraph 6(c) further provides that the punishability of money laundering does not depend on the existence, commencement or continuation of proceedings or a claim for the forfeiture or confiscation of the assets in favour of the State, provided that, in the relevant proceedings, it is proven that the assets derive from an underlying offence.
This amendment therefore represents a significant strengthening of the autonomous nature of the money laundering offence, removing the previous rule under which the absence of a claim for confiscation of the proceeds could result in the conduct provided for in the article not being punishable.
Independent punishment of money laundering
Paragraph 11 maintains the rule already provided for under Law Nº. 5/20 whereby punishment for money laundering does not depend on the conviction of the perpetrators of the underlying offences, with the previous reference to “property of unlawful origin” being replaced by “assets of unlawful origin”.
Law Nº. 8/26, however, adds two relevant provisions: first, it establishes that punishment for money laundering does not depend on proof that the advantages obtained were generated by an underlying offence; secondly, it expressly provides for its application where the perpetrator of the money laundering offence was the perpetrator or a participant in the underlying offence itself.
The amendment therefore further defines and strengthens the autonomous nature of the money laundering offence, expressly clarifying that its punishment does not require, in addition to the absence of a conviction of the perpetrators of the underlying offence, proof that the proceeds were actually generated by a specific underlying offence, nor does it preclude the liability of a person who participated in that offence.
Summary of the Main Amendments
In general terms, Law Nº. 8/26 does not constitute a comprehensive revision of Law Nº. 5/20, but rather introduces targeted amendments with a significant impact in four key areas:
Article 3: Broadening of the concept of PEPs and of the scope of family members covered
Broader range of persons subject to identification and risk assessment procedures.
Article 14: Introduction of new rules on enhanced due diligence and a risk-based approach
Greater flexibility, but also a need for proper risk assessment, justification and documentation.
Article 60-A: Strengthening of the FIU’s institutional, financial and operational autonomy
Greater independence of the FIU in the processing and dissemination of information.
Article 82: Reformulation of the money laundering offence and broadening of the underlying offences
Broader scope of criminal liability and stronger autonomy of the money laundering offence.
Impact on Obliged Entities
In light of the amendments introduced, entities subject to Law Nº. 5/20 are advised to review their internal compliance procedures, particularly with regard to the identification of PEPs and related persons, risk classification and assessment, the application of enhanced due diligence measures, and the monitoring of business relationships and transactions.
Law Nº. 8/26 entered into force on the date of its publication.
AVM Advogados remains available to assist its Clients in assessing the impact of these amendments and in adapting their internal procedures to the new legal framework.
--
Law Nº. 8/26 of 19 August was published, amending Articles 3, 14, 60-A and 82 of Law Nº. 5/20 of 27 January, which establishes the legal framework for the prevention and combating of money laundering, terrorist financing and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The amendment essentially seeks to strengthen the compliance of the Angolan legal framework with applicable international standards and to introduce certain adjustments regarding the identification of Politically Exposed Persons, enhanced due diligence measures, the autonomy of the Financial Intelligence Unit and the legal framework applicable to the offence of money laundering.
From a comparative perspective, the main amendments are highlighted below:
Article 3 — Politically Exposed Persons
Law Nº. 8/26 maintains the structure and core concept of Politically Exposed Persons (“PEPs”) set out in Law Nº. 5/20, while introducing, however, a significant extension regarding the period during which the relevant public functions were held and, in particular, the scope of family members covered.
Under the previous wording, the concept covered national or foreign individuals who held or had held prominent public functions as provided for under Law Nº. 5/20.
The new wording expressly provides that PEPs include individuals who hold or have held such functions for at least 12 months, in Angola, in another country or jurisdiction, or in an International Organisation.
A new provision has also been introduced regarding family members of PEPs. In addition to the persons already covered by the previous wording, the following are now expressly included:
- ascendants and descendants of the PEP; and
- spouses or “de facto” partners of the PEP’s ascendants and descendants.
This amendment therefore expands the scope of persons who must be taken into account for identification and risk assessment purposes.
Article 14 — Enhanced Due Diligence Measures
Law Nº. 8/26 maintains the principle that enhanced due diligence measures apply in situations involving increased risk, while introducing three new paragraphs — paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 — which further develop and provide greater flexibility to the regime previously in force.
New paragraph 7 provides that the application of the measures set out in former paragraph 5 does not prevent the adoption of other enhanced measures or the intensification of the measures already provided for, whenever the specific risk associated with the business relationship or occasional transaction is particularly high.
New paragraph 8 further allows obliged entities, subject to sector-specific regulatory authorisation aligned with domestic legislation and international best practices, to reduce the intensity or frequency of enhanced due diligence measures applicable to PEPs, where the relevant risks have been sufficiently identified, assessed or mitigated.
Finally, paragraph 9, also newly introduced, grants supervisory and inspection authorities the power to determine the specific content of enhanced measures appropriate to the risks identified.
Accordingly, the main amendment to Article 14 lies in the introduction of a more explicit risk-based approach, allowing the intensity of measures applicable to PEPs to be adjusted according to the specific risk involved, without prejudice to the possibility of strengthening such measures where that risk is high.
Article 60-A — Financial Intelligence Unit
Law Nº. 8/26 introduces a new Article 60-A, specifically addressing the legal nature of the Financial Intelligence Unit (“FIU”), consolidating and further developing matters which, under Law Nº. 5/20, were essentially addressed in Article 61 (Powers) and Article 62 (Autonomy and Independence of the Financial Intelligence Unit).
First, the new provision expressly qualifies the FIU as a public legal person, endowed with administrative, financial and asset autonomy, a characteristic which was not expressly provided for under Law Nº. 5/20.
In line with former Article 62, the FIU’s autonomy in the performance of its functions is maintained, with the law now expressly referring to its operational, functional and technical autonomy, as well as to the absence of unlawful interference by other bodies or entities.
From a financial perspective, Law Nº. 8/26 introduces a new provision establishing that the FIU constitutes a budgetary unit, with a specific budget allocation intended to ensure the conditions necessary for its organisation and operation. This matter was not expressly addressed in Law Nº. 5/20, which merely provided, within the scope of the FIU’s autonomy and independence, that it should have sufficient financial, human and technical resources to perform its functions.
On the other hand, the new wording maintains the decision-making autonomy already provided for under former Article 62(3) regarding the analysis, requesting and dissemination of information, while expressly extending such autonomy to decisions concerning the submission of communications to the competent authorities, without the need for prior authorisation from any entity.
Accordingly, the main amendment does not lie in the creation ex novo of the FIU’s autonomy, which was already provided for under Law Nº. 5/20, but rather in the strengthening and further development of its institutional, financial and functional status, with particular emphasis on its qualification as a public legal person, its administrative, financial and asset autonomy, and the existence of its own budget allocation.
Article 82 — Money Laundering Offence
Some of the most significant substantive amendments are introduced in Article 82.
Covered conduct
Paragraph 1(a) has been reformulated and now expressly provides that the conduct may consist of converting, transferring, assisting or facilitating, directly or indirectly, conversion or transfer transactions involving assets derived from crimes, where carried out with the purpose of concealing their unlawful origin or avoiding the criminal prosecution of the perpetrator or participant.
The new wording therefore introduces a broader formulation of the conduct involving the conversion and transfer of assets.
Acquisition, possession or use of assets
Paragraph 1(c) has likewise been reformulated. Under the previous wording, the provision referred to the acquisition, possession or use of “property or rights relating to property”, requiring the perpetrator to have knowledge, “at the time of receipt”, that such property derived from the commission of the offences referred to in paragraph 4.
The new wording replaces the reference to “property” with “assets or rights relating to such assets” and, more importantly, expands the relevant point in time for assessing knowledge of the unlawful origin, which is now linked to the “acquisition, possession or use” of the assets.
Accordingly, the amendment no longer expressly limits knowledge of the unlawful origin to the time when the property is received, but instead encompasses the different stages at which the assets are acquired, held or used.
Participation and other forms of involvement
In paragraph 2, the amendment introduced by Law Nº. 8/26 is limited and concerns the conjunction used between the acts of “facilitating” and “directing” the commission of the offence. Whereas the previous wording referred to “facilitating and directing”, the new wording provides for “facilitating or directing”.
Although this is a relatively narrow textual amendment, replacing “and” with “or” allows these two forms of conduct to be regarded as alternative, meaning that, in principle, their cumulative occurrence is no longer required for the provision to apply.
Concept of advantages
Paragraph 3 has been reformulated, replacing the reference to “property” with “assets” derived from the commission of the underlying offences of money laundering.
The new wording also further defines the concept of advantages, expressly providing that these include not only the assets derived from the underlying offences, but also property acquired directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, with such assets, including the advantages resulting from their transformation, conversion or reinvestment.
The amendment therefore introduces a broader formulation of the concept of advantages, expressly covering benefits or assets resulting, even indirectly, from the transformation or application of assets of unlawful origin.
Underlying offences for money laundering purposes
Paragraph 4 has been reformulated, maintaining the requirement that the underlying offences must be punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment of at least six months.
The new wording, however, removes the previous reference to “all typical unlawful acts”, replacing it with the broader term “offences”, and expressly adds two requirements: that the offences be committed by any person and that they be capable of generating economic benefits or profits.
The amendment therefore constitutes a clarification and further definition of the concept of an underlying offence.
Autonomy of the money laundering offence from the underlying offence
Paragraph 6 undergoes a substantive amendment, moving from a provision concerning non-punishability to an express rule establishing the independent punishability of money laundering conduct.
Under the previous wording, the offences provided for in the article were not punishable where, at the time of their commission, there was no longer a claim for confiscation of the advantages, including as a result of an amnesty, limitation of criminal proceedings or failure to file a complaint within the applicable time limit, where a complaint was required.
The new wording removes this non-punishability rule and, conversely, establishes that the conduct provided for in paragraph 1 is punishable regardless of the procedural or substantive status of the underlying offence.
For this purpose, the law now expressly covers situations where the perpetrator of the underlying offence is unknown, cannot be identified, cannot be located, is legally incapable, deceased, benefits from immunity or cannot be tried for any other reason [paragraph 6(a)], as well as situations where the relevant criminal proceedings have not been initiated, cannot continue or have been extinguished, including due to limitation, amnesty, pardon, remission or withdrawal of a complaint or report [paragraph 6(b)].
New paragraph 6(c) further provides that the punishability of money laundering does not depend on the existence, commencement or continuation of proceedings or a claim for the forfeiture or confiscation of the assets in favour of the State, provided that, in the relevant proceedings, it is proven that the assets derive from an underlying offence.
This amendment therefore represents a significant strengthening of the autonomous nature of the money laundering offence, removing the previous rule under which the absence of a claim for confiscation of the proceeds could result in the conduct provided for in the article not being punishable.
Independent punishment of money laundering
Paragraph 11 maintains the rule already provided for under Law Nº. 5/20 whereby punishment for money laundering does not depend on the conviction of the perpetrators of the underlying offences, with the previous reference to “property of unlawful origin” being replaced by “assets of unlawful origin”.
Law Nº. 8/26, however, adds two relevant provisions: first, it establishes that punishment for money laundering does not depend on proof that the advantages obtained were generated by an underlying offence; secondly, it expressly provides for its application where the perpetrator of the money laundering offence was the perpetrator or a participant in the underlying offence itself.
The amendment therefore further defines and strengthens the autonomous nature of the money laundering offence, expressly clarifying that its punishment does not require, in addition to the absence of a conviction of the perpetrators of the underlying offence, proof that the proceeds were actually generated by a specific underlying offence, nor does it preclude the liability of a person who participated in that offence.
Summary of the Main Amendments
In general terms, Law Nº. 8/26 does not constitute a comprehensive revision of Law Nº. 5/20, but rather introduces targeted amendments with a significant impact in four key areas:
Article 3: Broadening of the concept of PEPs and of the scope of family members covered
Broader range of persons subject to identification and risk assessment procedures
Article 14: Introduction of new rules on enhanced due diligence and a risk-based approach
Greater flexibility, but also a need for proper risk assessment, justification and documentation
Article 60-A: Strengthening of the FIU’s institutional, financial and operational autonomy
Greater independence of the FIU in the processing and dissemination of information
Article 82: Reformulation of the money laundering offence and broadening of the underlying offences
Broader scope of criminal liability and stronger autonomy of the money laundering offence
Impact on Obliged Entities
In light of the amendments introduced, entities subject to Law Nº. 5/20 are advised to review their internal compliance procedures, particularly with regard to the identification of PEPs and related persons, risk classification and assessment, the application of enhanced due diligence measures, and the monitoring of business relationships and transactions.
Law Nº. 8/26 entered into force on the date of its publication.
AVM Advogados remains available to assist its Clients in assessing the impact of these amendments and in adapting their internal procedures to the new legal framework.
--
Read the original publication at AVM Legal Network
