RC / AML-CFT Oversight

The RC — responsable du contrôle du respect des obligations — is the person responsible for controlling and overseeing compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) obligations. The RC needs genuine AML/CFT expertise, knowledge of the specific structure, and access to the information and systems required to perform the role.

The RR — responsable du respect des obligations — sits at management level and is responsible for ensuring compliance with AML/CFT obligations. The RC performs the control and oversight function that tests whether compliance is actually being achieved. Depending on the structure and the applicable supervisory regime, the RR may be the governing body collectively or a designated individual member of it.

Luxembourg investment structures within the AML/CFT supervisory perimeter of the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) or the Administration de l’enregistrement, des domaines et de la TVA (AED) are required to identify and appoint an RR and an RC. In practice this covers regulated funds, reserved alternative investment funds (RAIFs) and other alternative investment funds (AIFs) falling within those frameworks. The starting assumption for a Luxembourg AIF should be that the appointments are required, and the analysis should then confirm which supervisor applies and what that supervisor expects.

Broadly, the CSSF supervises AML/CFT compliance for the entities it authorises and prudentially supervises, and the AED supervises AML/CFT compliance for Luxembourg AIFs that are not subject to CSSF product supervision, including RAIFs and unregulated AIFs. The distinction matters because reporting formats, deadlines and questionnaire campaigns differ between the two. Confirm which applies to your vehicle before building the reporting calendar.

No. Investor onboarding is one part of the role. Depending on the structure, RC oversight also covers asset-side due diligence, sanctions and politically exposed person (PEP) screening, monitoring of delegates, review of high-risk relationships, the AML/CFT risk assessment, policies and procedures, control testing, and regulatory reporting.

Yes, where asset-side risk exists, which for most Luxembourg AIFs it does. This can include review of target companies, acquisition counterparties, sellers, beneficial owners and the jurisdictions involved. The depth of that review is set on a risk-based basis, but the decision to look is not optional.

The operational tasks can be delegated. The responsibility cannot. The fund, its governing body and the RC need to know exactly what has been delegated, monitor whether the delegated controls are working, and ensure that exceptions, gaps and overdue items are escalated rather than absorbed. Delegation without oversight is the single most common finding in this area.

Yes, in substance. The fund needs an AML/CFT framework calibrated to its own investors, investments, activities and risks. An alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) or administrator policy can be a useful building block, but adopting it wholesale does not replace a fund-specific risk assessment and a documented framework the fund’s own governing body can stand behind.

The deadline depends on the supervisory authority and the type of entity.

For entities subject to the CSSF’s AML/CFT Summary Report RC (SRRC) requirement, the report is annual and must generally be submitted within five months following the end of the financial year. For an entity with a 31 December year-end, this therefore normally means 31 May of the following year.

For entities supervised by the AED, the reporting calendar should be checked against the campaign applicable to the relevant year. For the 2025 activity year, RAIFs were required to submit both the RC Report 2025 and the RAIF AML/CFT Questionnaire 2025 by 31 May 2026.

For other AIFs supervised by the AED, the position was different in 2026: submission of the RC Report 2025 and AML/CFT Questionnaire 2025 was only required following an invitation from the AED, with the relevant submission instructions communicated through that process.

Yes, in certain circumstances, provided the applicable requirements are met — in particular availability to the Luxembourg authorities and sufficient access to the information, records and systems needed to perform the role. This is assessed structure by structure, and a non-resident RC arrangement should be documented rather than assumed.

Access, in practice and not just in principle: the investor register and onboarding files, the AIFM and administrator control reports, the transaction and asset-side documentation, screening results and alerts, the risk assessment and policies, and the board and committee materials. Where access runs through a delegate, the arrangement should be set out in the delegation agreement or a service-level annex.

Amana generally agrees a fixed annual fee for the ordinary RC mandate, determined after reviewing the AML/CFT risk profile and expected level of oversight of the structure. The fee is principally influenced by factors such as the number of investors, number of underlying investments, nature and risk profile of those investments and investment jurisdictions, complexity of the ownership structures, presence of higher-risk relationships or PEPs, level of delegation to the AIFM or administrator, and the applicable regulatory or supervisory regime. The scope and annual fee are agreed upfront so that the client has visibility over the expected cost.

Yes, for Luxembourg investment structures — covering ongoing controls, investor and asset-side AML oversight, delegate monitoring, risk assessments and support with annual regulatory reporting.

Further reading: our note on FATCA and CRS reporting, the matching FATCA and CRS FAQ, and our liquidation FAQ.