Breaking news

CySEC Enforces New EU AML Regulations With Rigorous Compliance Mandates

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

January 6, 2026

Overview Of The New Directive

The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) has issued a formal circular, requiring all regulated entities in Cyprus to submit detailed information to support the implementation of the European Union’s latest anti‐money laundering legislation. This directive stems from Regulation (EU) 2024/1620, established by the European Parliament and the Council on May 31, 2024, which has been active since July 2025.

Mandated Assessments And Operational Scope

Under the new framework, the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA) will collaborate with national supervisors to conduct routine assessments of credit and financial institutions across at least six EU Member States. These assessments apply regardless of whether financial activities are performed onsite or remotely, underscoring the commission’s commitment to comprehensive market oversight.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Submission Requirements And Stringent Deadlines

To streamline this initiative, CySEC has introduced a new Form, available as an appendix in the circular. All entities authorized by December 31, 2024 must complete and submit this document. Compliance officers are required to email the completed form to the designated address by January 9, 2026. It is crucial to adhere to this deadline, as no follow-up reminders will be provided; therefore, each firm will bear full responsibility.

Technical Specifications And Support Framework

The circular outlines specific technical requirements: all Excel files must be named using the TRS credentials username followed by the date (20241231) and the suffix AMLA. Only English language versions of the form will be accepted, and all data must be reported in euros, rounded to the nearest unit. Detailed instructions are provided within an in-file worksheet to ensure precision.

Broad Implications For The Financial Sector

This mandate extends to Cyprus Investment Firms, UCITS management companies, Alternative Investment Fund Managers, Crypto-Asset Services Providers, and even smaller-scale operations such as Small AIFMs and Sub-threshold AIFMs. In doing so, the regulator aims to enhance market transparency and reinforce the EU’s centralised approach to combating financial crime through the integrated AMLA supervisory framework.

Support And Further Inquiries

For technical support, regulated entities may submit questions regarding the circular and its appendices between December 30, 2025, and January 8, 2026. All queries must be submitted in writing to the designated risk statistics email address, ensuring clarity and consistency in the regulatory process.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.