Het opslaan van kopieën van legitimatiebewijzen, foto’s en video’s van cliënten: de grenzen van de Wwft-reconstructieplicht in het licht van fundamentele rechten

A legal-historical analysis of the Wwft shows that retaining a copy of a client's identification document under the record-keeping obligation (Article 33) of the Wwft is not mandatory, can be done but is not always allowed, and that the Wwft provides no basis, let alone an obligation, to retain photographs and audio and video recordings of clients.

Retaining a copy of a proof of identity constitutes a more serious restriction of the fundamental right to privacy and data protection (Article 8 ECHR, Articles 7 and 8 EU Charter) than the mere retention of loose identity data, because a copy of a proof of identity carries a greater and more serious risk of abuse than the retention of loose identity data. As the retention of (only) identity data is sufficient under the Wwft, the subsidiarity requirement dictates that obliged entities should choose to do so if possible, instead of (also) retaining a copy of the client's proof of identity. In the context of the Wwft's record-keeping obligation, the subsidiarity requirement precludes, for the same reason, the retention of a copy of the identification document on which other data (photograph, signature, citizen service number) are also visible.