Cross-Framework Mapping

AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)vsEU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review

See exactly how AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls map to EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

7
Controls Mapped
34
Gaps Found
7%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) maps to EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review with 7% coverage across 3 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 41 AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls identifies 38 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Reporting Obligations.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 41 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 7 of 7 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Customer Identification (KYC)(3 mappings)

AMLCTF-35Identity Verification Standard3 targets
PSR Art. 83Strong customer authentication
PSR Art. 85Dynamic linking for remote transactions
PSR Art. 86Exemptions from strong customer authentication

AML/CTF Program Requirements(1 mappings)

AMLCTF-82Part A Compliance
PSR Art. 88Operational and security risk management

Reporting Obligations(3 mappings)

BSA-SAR-3SAR Confidentiality3 targets
PSR Art. 13Pre-contractual information requirements
PSR Art. 88Operational and security risk management
PSR Art. 90Fraud prevention measures

Related Comparisons

Other AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) comparisons

Other EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 693 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) and EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review?

AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) has 41 controls across its framework, while EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review covers 27 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 3 overlapping controls (7% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Reporting Obligations, where 16 AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls have no direct EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review equivalent.

How many controls map between AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) and EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review?

Of 41 total AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls, 3 map directly to EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review controls — representing 7% coverage. The remaining 38 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) to EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review?

38 AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls have no direct equivalent in EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review. The highest concentration of gaps is in Reporting Obligations with 16 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) and EU Payment Services Directive (PSD2) – Under Review?

The domain with the highest gap count is Reporting Obligations (16 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.