What are the offences of failing to report and tipping off?
When not telling MOKAS about a suspicion becomes a crime, what counts as tipping off, the penalties for each, and when information may still be shared.
By the ExamPass CY editorial teamLast reviewed 5 min read
Short answer
Anyone who, through work in an obliged entity, knows or reasonably suspects that another person is laundering money or financing terrorism commits an offence if they do not tell MOKAS as soon as reasonably practicable: up to 2 years and/or €5,000, and prosecution needs the Attorney General's approval. Tipping off means telling the customer or anyone else that a suspicious transaction report or analysis exists, or disclosing anything that could hinder an investigation one knows or suspects is under way: up to 2 years and/or €50,000.
The two offences at a glance
| Offence | Rule |
|---|---|
| Failure to report (Article 27) | Knowledge or reasonable suspicion gained at work in an obliged entity, not disclosed to MOKAS as soon as reasonably practicable |
| Penalty for failure to report | Up to 2 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to €5,000; prosecution only with the Attorney General's express approval |
| Defences to failure to report | A reasonable explanation or justification; lawyers are not obliged to disclose privileged information |
| Tipping off (Article 48) | Telling the customer or a third party that suspicious-transaction information has been, is being or will be sent to MOKAS, or that an analysis is being or may be carried out |
| Penalty for tipping off | Up to 2 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to €50,000 |
| Not tipping off | Reporting to MOKAS; informing supervisors or law enforcement; sharing within a group or among professionals under Article 49; an auditor or lawyer trying to dissuade a client from crime |
Source: Law 188(I)/2007, Articles 27, 48 and 49, as amended up to 2026.
When is failing to report a crime?
The duty to report is personal. A person commits an offence if they know or reasonably suspect that someone else is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing, the information behind that knowledge or suspicion reached them in the course of their employment, profession or business in an obliged entity, and they do not disclose it to MOKAS as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Two defences exist. A lawyer who does not disclose privileged information commits no offence, and a reasonable explanation or justification for not disclosing is a defence. A prosecution can only start with the Attorney General's express approval. The penalty is up to 2 years in prison and/or a fine of up to €5,000.
Inside a firm, the route is internal first. Every obliged entity has staff report suspicions to the AML compliance officer, who decides whether to report to MOKAS, and a good-faith internal report is protected. See What defences exist?
Terms used in this note
- Tipping off
- Alerting a customer or other third party that a suspicious transaction report or an investigation exists.
- Internal suspicion report
- The report a member of staff makes to the firm's AML compliance officer about a transaction or activity they find suspicious.
- AML compliance officer
- The person a firm appoints to receive internal suspicion reports and decide whether to report to MOKAS.
What counts as tipping off?
An obliged entity and its directors and employees must not tell the customer concerned, or any other third party, that information about suspicious transactions has been, is being or will be sent to MOKAS, or that an analysis for money laundering or terrorist financing is being or may be carried out. More broadly, no one may make a disclosure that could obstruct or harm an investigation into criminal proceeds or prescribed offences while knowing or suspecting that it is under way.
Reporting to MOKAS is not tipping off; it is the purpose of the rules. Telling the board or the compliance function internally is part of the firm's own process, and disclosures to supervisors or for law enforcement purposes are expressly allowed. When an auditor, external accountant or independent lawyer tries to persuade a client not to get involved in illegal activity, that is not tipping off either.
The penalty is up to 2 years in prison and/or a fine of up to €50,000. In practice firms handle this by keeping reports confidential, avoiding any hint to the customer when asking for information, and taking advice from the compliance officer before telling a customer why a transaction is delayed.
When may information about a report be shared?
The prohibition does not stop credit and financial institutions in EU member states that belong to the same group sharing information, including with branches and majority-owned subsidiaries in third countries that fully comply with the group's policies, including its information-sharing procedures. Auditors, external accountants, tax advisers and independent lawyers in EU member states, or in third countries with equivalent requirements, may share information within the same firm or wider network that shares ownership, management or compliance control.
Where the same customer and the same transaction involve two or more of these obliged entities, they may share information if they are in the same professional category, are located in an EU member state or a third country with equivalent requirements, and are subject to professional secrecy and data protection obligations. Sharing on these terms does not breach any contractual or legal restriction on disclosure.
How to think about it
Keep the two offences and their numbers apart. Failing to report is about silence towards MOKAS: 2 years and €5,000, and only with the Attorney General's approval. Tipping off is about speaking to the wrong people: 2 years and €50,000. Then test each disclosure by its recipient: MOKAS, supervisors, law enforcement and permitted group sharing are fine; the customer and outsiders are not.
Common mistakes
Swapping the fines. Failure to report carries up to €5,000; tipping off up to €50,000; both up to 2 years in prison.
Treating a report to MOKAS or the board as tipping off. Tipping off concerns the customer and outside third parties, not the proper reporting chain.
Waiting for proof before reporting. Knowledge or reasonable suspicion is enough, and the report is due as soon as reasonably practicable.
Assuming group sharing is always forbidden. Article 49 allows sharing within groups and certain professional networks under conditions.
Legal references
- The Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Law of 2007 (Law 188(I)/2007), consolidated Greek text on CyLaw (amendments up to Law 25(I)/2026) (opens in a new tab)
Article 27: failure to report · Article 48: tipping off · Article 49: exemptions from the prohibition · Article 69: internal reporting and reporting to MOKAS
- Directive (EU) 2015/849 (4th AML Directive), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 (opens in a new tab)
Article 39: prohibition of disclosure
Practise this topic
Test what you just read
The Chapter 3 pack has 84 exam-style questions, 7 of them on this topic. Every question has a hint before you answer and a full explanation after.
Or revise the numbers first with 15 free Chapter 3 flashcards →