Legal blog

New Era in Sanctions Compliance: Analysis of Recommendation No. 3/2026 (25 March) of the Central Bank of Hungary

2026-04-14 | Crypto, E-trade

New Era in Sanctions Compliance: Analysis of Recommendation No. 3/2026 (25 March) of the Central Bank of Hungary

1. Scope and Objectives of the Recommendation

The Recommendation applies not only to traditional credit institutions, but also to all significant actors of the modern fintech and crypto sector.

  • Personal scope: It applies to credit institutions, payment institutions, electronic money issuers, and in particular to crypto-asset service providers (CASPs).
  • Material scope: In addition to fund transfers, it also covers crypto-asset transfers, in line with the revised European “Travel Rule” (TFR) regulation.
  • Primary objective: To prevent sanctioned persons or entities from using the financial system to circumvent restrictive measures, with particular regard to the anonymity features of crypto-assets.

2. Internal Policies and Procedures: Foundations of Compliance


The Central Bank of Hungary requires institutions not merely to maintain “paper-based” policies, but to operate a living system capable of responding in real time to changing sanctions lists.

Risk assessment and risk classification

Institutions are required to conduct an institution-wide sanctions risk assessment. This must identify geographic areas, product types and customer segments that are particularly exposed to sanctions violations.

Application of automated screening systems

The Recommendation stipulates that manual screening is no longer sufficient given current transaction volumes. Institutions must:

  • apply real-time screening prior to the initiation and execution of transactions;

  • use fuzzy matching technologies to identify variations of names, typographical errors, or transliteration differences (e.g. Cyrillic names);

  • in the case of crypto-asset transfers, monitor wallet addresses and blockchain analytics data.


3. Specific Treatment of Crypto-Assets


One of the most innovative elements of Recommendation No. 3/2026 is the detailed set of expectations applicable to the crypto sphere.

Implementation of the “Travel Rule”: Crypto service providers must ensure that data relating to the originator and the beneficiary are attached to the transfer.

Risk of un-hosted wallets: Where a client transfers to a self-hosted wallet independent of a service provider, enhanced due diligence (EDD) is required in order to exclude sanctions exposure.

Blockchain monitoring: The Central Bank of Hungary requires the use of software capable of indicating whether a crypto-asset originates from a “tainted” source (e.g. a sanctioned mixer service).

4. Organisational Requirements and Allocation of Responsibilities


Compliance is not merely a technological issue, but also a matter of governance responsibility.

Designation of a responsible senior manager: A responsible person must be appointed at board level for the implementation of restrictive measures.

Independent control function: Internal audit must regularly (at least annually) assess the effectiveness of screening systems and the adequacy of their parameterisation.

Training: Employees must participate in specialised training covering the identification of sanctions evasion techniques (e.g. shell companies, complex ownership structures).

5. Reporting and Asset Freezing Protocol


Where the screening system generates a hit, the institution must act in accordance with a strict protocol:

Immediate freezing: Where the match is confirmed, access to the assets must be prevented without delay.

Reporting: The hit must be reported to the competent authority (Hungarian Tax and Customs Administration – Financial Intelligence Unit).

Absence of notification prohibition: An important legal distinction compared to anti-money laundering rules is that the “tipping-off” prohibition does not apply in all cases; therefore, the client may be informed of the sanctions following the execution of the freezing measure.

 


Summary



Recommendation No. 3/2026 (25 March) of the Central Bank of Hungary sends a clear message to the market: sanctions compliance is no longer a “best effort” activity, but a stringent technological and legal requirement. Institutions that fail to place sufficient emphasis on the strict control of crypto-assets and digital financial flows risk not only substantial fines, but also significant reputational damage in an increasingly strict international environment.

What Is the EUDI Wallet, and What Can It Be Used For?

2026-10-21
What Is the EUDI Wallet, and What Can It Be Used For?

The EUDI Wallet (European Digital Identity Wallet) is a digital solution that enables individuals to electronically prove their identity and present certain personal data and entitlements. Its legal basis is established by Regulation (EU) 2024/1183, which amends the eIDAS Regulation.

In practice, this could mean presenting a digital document proving an educational qualification, verifying one's identity when accessing an online service, or making administrative procedures in another EU Member State easier. The aim is to enable users to verify the information required of them securely and conveniently, with less administrative effort.

Read more

The Legal Price of ChatGPT: Copyright and GDPR Mazes Behind Artificial Intelligence

2026-09-11
The Legal Price of ChatGPT: Copyright and GDPR Mazes Behind Artificial Intelligence

The revolution of artificial intelligence has forced not only the technology sector but also legislators to take action. Although ChatGPT and similar large language models may appear to users to be simple chat programs, an astonishing amount of data processing takes place in the background. The European Union’s legal framework has highlighted that these models raise serious copyright and data protection challenges, which cause significant headaches for developers.

Read more

Know Your Agent – Who Is Liable When AI Acts on Our Behalf?

2026-09-10
Know Your Agent – Who Is Liable When AI Acts on Our Behalf?

The next stage in the development of AI is no longer simply about artificial intelligence answering questions or making recommendations. So-called AI agents are increasingly capable of acting autonomously on behalf of users: initiating purchases, booking appointments, carrying out financial transactions, or even managing processes across multiple digital systems.

This, however, raises a new question, primarily of a legal nature: how can it be determined whether an AI agent was actually authorised to perform a particular action, and who is liable if it exceeds the limits of its authority?

Read more