2018-07-01
Added · Updated
The document defines five categories of antecedents—criminal, financial, supervisory, tax compliance, and other—that impact the fit and proper assessment of policymakers in financial institutions. Financial institutions and policymakers are required to truthfully report these antecedents during initial assessments and immediately notify the regulator of any new occurrences. The regulator weighs reported antecedents against factors such as disclosure timing, gravity, and behavioral patterns, with only severe criminal convictions typically leading to an immediate negative propriety opinion. Informal supervisory measures imposed by the regulator or other authorities generally qualify as supervisory antecedents, though the qualification of an event as an antecedent itself is not subject to objection or appeal.
Q&A
Read aloud
We assess incumbent and prospective policymakers, such as management and supervisory board members. We consider whether they are fit to fulfil their duties and whether their propriety is beyond doubt, focusing on intentions, actions and antecedents of management or supervisory board members that may get in the way of carrying out his or her duties. Below, we explain how we consider a policymaker's antecedents.
Published: 01 July 2018
Latest update: 26 September 2023
What are antecedents?
In investigating a policymaker's antecedents as part of a fit and proper assessment, we distinguish five types of antecedents:
Criminal antecedents, such as convictions, transactions, (conditional) dropping of charges, acquittal or discharge from prosecution
Financial antecedents, such as major private or business-related financial issues and bankruptcies
Supervisory antecedents, such as incorrect or incomplete disclosure to a supervisory authority, rejection of a licence application or imposition of a formal or informal measure
Tax compliance antecedents, such as personal or business tax offence penalties imposed by a tax authority
Other antecedents, such as a disciplinary measure or employment conflict
There is an ongoing notification requirement for antecedents. What does this mean?
When your institution applies for an initial assessment of a prospective policymaker, that person must complete the Propriety Assessment Form truthfully and in full, reporting relevant antecedents. In addition, fitness and propriety are ongoing requirements, meaning that financial institutions and policymakers must always notify us immediately of new antecedents. If you are in doubt as to whether an event qualifies as an antecedent, apply the rule of thumb that it is better to report too much than too little. When investigating a reported antecedent, we regard full disclosure as a mitigating factor.
If you wish to report an antecedent or have any questions, please contact the Expert Centre on Fit & Proper Assessments at toetsing.expertisecentrum@dnb.nl.
Any supervisory measures we have imposed will be known to us. You do not need to report those. However, any other formal or informal measures imposed by another supervisory authority, such as the AFM, the ECB, or a foreign supervisory authority.
How does DNB handle antecedents in an assessment?
Antecedents may impact our opinion on someone's propriety and, in some cases, on someone's fitness, or they may provide reasonable grounds for reassessment . Only the most severe category of criminal antecedents, such as a recent conviction for insider trading, will immediately lead us to express the opinion that someone's propriety is no longer beyond doubt. In all other cases, we will weigh the antecedent, considering various factors, including:
extent and timing of disclosure
extent of completeness of explanations
type of offence and gravity
nature and extent of any sanctions
time elapsed between the antecedent and the report
the involved person's position and the circumstances of the event or offence
number of antecedents, repeat offences or behavioural pattern: we may at a later time assess any antecedents that in themselves do not justify a negative opinion if they should appear to form part of a behavioural pattern
Experience has shown that the large majority of antecedents, once reported, do not immediately lead us to express a negative opinion on someone's propriety. In many cases, we apply a "zero weighting", meaning that the antecedent does not affect our opinion on someone's propriety.
When do supervisory measures result in antecedents, and for whom?
To determine whether a supervisory measure qualifies as an antecedent for a financial institution's policymakers, we consider various factors, including the relevant period and the offences that prompted the measure. As a rule, a measures qualifies as an antecedent for all policymakers in office during the relevant period. This means it is not for those in office when the measure was imposed but not yet in office when the offence took place. Conversely, it is also an antecedent for those in office when the offence took place but no longer when the measure was imposed.
Does DNB's imposition of an informal supervisory measure result in an antecedent?
Yes, when we impose an informal supervisory measure, the offence that prompted it qualifies as a supervisory antecedent. Regardless of whether we impose a supervisory measure, we can always weigh relevant instances of non-compliance with the law in assessing or reassessing someone's fitness and propriety.
We use two types of informal measure: a warning letter and a compliance briefing. We use these measures, and sometimes combine them with a formal measure, whenever we find instances of non-compliance. This means that there is always an instance of non-compliance prompting the informal measure. That instance of non-compliance qualifies as a supervisory antecedent.
Does the imposition of an informal measure by another supervisory authority qualify as an antecedent?
If the AFM imposes an informal measure, this will always qualify as a supervisory antecedent. As a rule, if another Dutch or foreign financial supervisor imposes an informal measure, this will qualify as an antecedent if it may reasonably be relevant in assessing someone's fitness or propriety. If you are in doubt, remember that it is better to report too much than too little. Full disclosure, or a lack thereof, is a factor we always weigh.
Can you object to a qualification as an antecedent?
No, we qualify an event as an antecedent on the basis of the law. As a result, this is not a decision open to objection or appeal. However, if we weigh the antecedent and express our opinion following assessment or reassessment, this will in principle be in the form of a decision open to objection or appeal.
Fit and proper assessments
Share:
Share on LinkedIn
Share on X
Share on Facebook
Share via Email
Interesting articles
Fine for CCV Group B.V. for lack of SIRA
21 July 2026
Enforcement measures
De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) discloses its decision of 9 July 2020 to impose an administrative fine on CCV Group B.V. (CCV). DNB also discloses its decisions on CCV’s objection of 13 April 2022 and CCV’s subsequent appeal and higher appeal.
Read more Fine for CCV Group B.V. for lack of SIRA
Enforcement measures
21 July 2026
Prudential rules do not hinder bank financing for EU priorities
17 July 2026
News item supervision
Europe faces historic investment challenges, in which banks will play an important financing role. Prudential requirements strengthen banks’ resilience, without posing a major obstacle to their financing. Unlocking more private finance requires better risk-sharing and deeper financial integration.
Read more Prudential rules do not hinder bank financing for EU priorities
News item supervision
17 July 2026
DNB Inhouse Day for the Dutch banking sector: financial crime supervision
16 July 2026
News item supervision
Following last year’s successful event, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) will again host an Inhouse Day for AML/CFT professionals in the Dutch banking sector. The event is designed to encourage dialogue and provide further insight into DNB’s AML/CFT supervision.
Read more DNB Inhouse Day for the Dutch banking sector: financial crime supervision
News item supervision
16 July 2026
Dutch insurers and pension funds have been investing more in private assets in recent years
15 July 2026
News item supervision
Dutch insurers and pension funds are investing more and more in private assets, such as private equity and private credit. By 2025, they had a combined total of €276 billion worth of these investments on their books.
Read more Dutch insurers and pension funds have been investing more in private assets in recent years
News item supervision
15 July 2026
Necessary cookies
To ensure the proper operation of the website, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) uses functional cookies and analytics cookies, and has taken measures to ensure that these cookies have little or no impact on the privacy of website users.
Optional cookies
Some pages include embedded content from external websites. These websites may use proprietary (tracking) cookies. This allows third parties to track visitor statistics, show personalised content and display targeted ads, for example.
You can make your choice about allowing these optional cookies both when you first visit the website and when you navigate to a page with embedded content.