What happens if the documentation turns out to be incomplete during an inspection?

Breaches of the retention and documentation duties can attract regulatory sanctions regardless of any specific money-laundering suspicion — classification and personal attribution depend on the individual case.

The statute is explicit here: it classifies a breach of the Art. 25 retention duty as a serious infringement (Art. 52.1(l) Ley 10/2010), sanctionable under Art. 57. The breach therefore stands on its own — it does not presuppose a money-laundering case. The law grades infringements as leve (minor), grave (serious) and muy grave (very serious); the assessment in the individual case follows Art. 59, and alongside the fine against the agency stands the personal liability of directors and senior management (Arts. 54 and 57.2.a). We do not quote specific figures.

In practice this means missing documentation is a risk in its own right, one you carry even where the check itself was substantively correct. Years after completion, a SEPBLAC inspection asks not only whether due diligence was carried out properly at the time — but whether the process can still be reconstructed from the records.

For a smaller agency, the consequences can be existential.

Legal basis: Ley 10/2010, Art. 52.1(l), Art. 57; Art. 25

Practical tip: What makes this class of error uncomfortable is that it is invisible as it happens. An agent who carries out a check carefully and merely records it badly only learns what went wrong afterwards — at a point when nothing can be added.