Breaking news

New EU Authority To Transform Anti-Money Laundering Oversight

by THEFUTURE.TEAM

February 11, 2026

The European Union is poised for a regulatory revolution with the establishment of a new authority dedicated to combating money laundering. Scheduled to become fully operational by 2027, this central agency will exercise direct supervision over 40 of the largest financial institutions across more than seven member states, reinforcing a uniform standard of oversight that has been historically fragmented.

A Unified European Front Against Financial Crime

Emil Radev, a Bulgarian MEP from the European People’s Party (EPP) and GERB, detailed the new framework on the BTA podcast “EULexBG.” He explained that the authority, which will be headquartered in Frankfurt, will oversee not only banks and financial firms but also exercise indirect supervision over non-financial entities that show potential money-laundering risks. The approach is designed to close regulatory loopholes that have allowed offenders to take advantage of differences between national laws.

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

Strengthening Compliance Across Member States

At present, each EU country applies its own legal mechanisms when enforcing anti-money-laundering rules, even though they stem from common EU directives. Radev noted that this has led to uneven enforcement, where identical offences can result in different consequences depending on the jurisdiction. The new authority aims to reduce these disparities by coordinating the financial intelligence units of all member states and setting clearer supervisory standards.

Enhanced Oversight Over Financial And Non-Financial Sectors

The revamped regulatory package approved in May 2024 expands its reach beyond traditional financial institutions. Investors in the cryptocurrency sphere, luxury goods merchants, football clubs, and even football agents will fall within its purview. The new mandates include stricter requirements for verifying the ultimate beneficial owners of companies and impose an EU-wide cap on cash payments at 10,000 euros, a move designed to curb illicit financial flows.

Regulatory Reforms And Bulgaria’s Recovery

Radev also referenced Bulgaria’s recent experience as an example of why stronger coordination is needed. The country was placed on the Financial Action Task Force’s gray list two years ago, which affected its international reputation. Updated legislation and improved compliance measures have since been introduced, and officials expect removal from the list within the year. The case illustrates how unified EU standards could help member states restore credibility more quickly when weaknesses are identified.

Overall, the establishment of the new authority marks a decisive move toward greater transparency and consistency in the European financial system. By centralising supervision and widening its scope, the EU is seeking to set a higher benchmark in the global fight against money laundering.

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.