The Central Bank of Ireland has signalled a sharper supervisory stance towards Irish MiFID investment firms following a review that revealed weaknesses in compliance functions, urging firms to enhance governance, training, and board engagement.
Irish MiFID investment firms are facing a sharper supervisory tone from the Central Bank of Ireland after a thematic assessment found that many compliance functions are not yet operating with the rigour the regulator expects.
The assessment, published on 18 May 2026 and circulated to the sector as an industry report, examined how firms were meeting requirements under Article 22 of the MiFID II Delegated Regulation and the relevant ESMA Guidelines. It looked at the robustness of compliance frameworks, the quality of planning, monitoring and testing, and the standard of reporting to boards and sub-committees.
According to a briefing from law firm Zeidler, the Central Bank has gone beyond setting out best practice. It has told every MiFID investment firm to discuss the findings at its next board meeting and to ensure that discussion is captured in the minutes. The regulator has also indicated it may follow up through supervisory work.
The review was prompted by concerns already flagged in the Central Bank’s 2025 and 2026 Regulatory and Supervisory Outlook reports, which pointed to weaknesses in culture, governance and risk management across the sector.
The overall picture was mixed. On the positive side, the report said many firms had a reasonable understanding of their obligations and were involving compliance teams earlier in strategic decisions, including product approvals and new business initiatives. Several firms were also said to have adequate staffing, risk-based monitoring programmes and horizon-scanning processes to track regulatory change.
But the Central Bank also identified a series of weaknesses that it said firms should address without delay. In some cases, firms could not show convincing succession planning or contingency arrangements for compliance roles, creating potential vulnerability if key personnel leave suddenly. Training designed entirely by human resources teams or external providers, without meaningful compliance input, was also flagged as a concern.
Other shortcomings included risk assessments that were not revisited often enough, compliance plans that lacked sufficient detail, and board minutes that failed to show genuine challenge or discussion of compliance issues. The regulator’s message was that a compliance function should be permanent, independent and embedded in governance, not treated as a box-ticking exercise.
Zeidler said firms should now carry out a self-assessment against the report, Article 22 and the ESMA Guidelines, and consider whether their compliance function is properly supporting the Consumer Protection Code, including the duty to secure customer interests and protect vulnerable consumers. Where gaps are found, the law firm said, remediation should be prompt and proactive.
For MiFID firms in Ireland, the assessment is a reminder that the Central Bank expects compliance teams to do more than monitor for breaches. They are also expected to shape conduct, influence decision-making and help boards demonstrate that risks are being challenged rather than merely recorded.
- https://regtechanalyst.com/cbi-review-exposes-gaps-in-mifid-compliance-functions/ – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://fintech.global/2026/07/09/cbi-review-exposes-weak-spots-in-mifid-compliance/ – The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has heightened regulatory scrutiny for MiFID investment firms by publishing a Thematic Assessment on 18 May 2026. This assessment, which carries direct regulatory obligations, reviewed compliance functions across firms regulated under MiFID II. The CBI has mandated that every MiFID investment firm discuss the report at its next board meeting, with the discussion formally recorded in the minutes, and has warned of potential supervisory follow-up. The review focused on the adequacy of compliance frameworks, effectiveness of compliance planning, monitoring and testing, and the quality of compliance reporting to boards and sub-committees.
- https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/regulation/industry-market-sectors/investment-firms/mifid-firms/regulatory-requirements-and-guidance/compliance-function-assessment-industry-report-2026.pdf – The Central Bank of Ireland’s 2026 Compliance Function Assessment Industry Report evaluates MiFID investment firms’ adherence to compliance function requirements under Article 22 of the MiFID II Delegated Regulation and related ESMA Guidelines. The assessment focused on the adequacy of compliance frameworks, effectiveness of compliance planning, monitoring and testing, and the quality of compliance reporting to boards and sub-committees. The report highlights both strengths and weaknesses in firms’ compliance functions, emphasizing the need for robust succession planning, active compliance involvement in training design and delivery, calibrated risk-based monitoring, prioritized horizon scanning, and accurate board minutes that capture debate and challenge.
- https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/central-bank-of-ireland-identifies-compliance-gaps-across-mifid-firms – The Central Bank of Ireland has highlighted compliance issues for MiFID firms. A new review by the Central Bank of Ireland looking at compliance functions across a cohort of MiFID (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive) investment firms has provided a timely insight into its supervisory expectations. The review reinforces the importance of a permanent, independent and effective compliance function as a core component of a firm’s governance framework and as a key driver of customer outcomes. The Central Bank thematic assessment focused on three areas: adequacy of compliance frameworks, effectiveness of compliance planning and monitoring, and quality of reporting to boards and sub-committees.
- https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/industry-market-sectors/investment-firms/mifid-firms – The Central Bank is responsible for the prudential regulation and supervision of MiFID Investment Firms authorised in Ireland; the regulation and supervision of the conduct of business of MiFID firms authorised in Ireland; and the regulation and supervision of those provisions of MiFID II relevant to the financial services market in Ireland. MiFID II governs the provision of investment services in financial instruments. It applies to investment firms, wealth managers, broker dealers, product manufacturers and credit institutions authorised to carry out MiFID activities. It also impacts on trading venues, market operators, alternative investment fund managers, investment intermediaries, data reporting services providers as well as third-country firms providing investment services in the EU.
- https://maples.com/regulatory-round-up/the-central-banks-thematic-assessment-compliance-functions-in-the-mifid-investment-firm-sector – The Central Bank of Ireland’s latest review of MiFID firms puts compliance functions firmly in focus. This blog looks at the key findings, from governance and board oversight to monitoring, training and succession planning, and outlines the practical steps firms should take now. The Central Bank’s Thematic Assessment: Compliance Functions in the MiFID Investment Firm Sector focuses on whether firms had adequate compliance frameworks, effective planning, monitoring and testing processes, and high-quality compliance reporting to boards and sub-committees. The findings are not uniformly negative.
- https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/regulatory-and-supervisory-outlook-reports/regulatory-supervisory-outlook-report-2026.pdf – The Central Bank of Ireland’s Regulatory & Supervisory Outlook Report 2026 highlights key risks and supervisory priorities for the financial sector. The report addresses various areas, including governance, risk management, and compliance functions within MiFID investment firms. It emphasizes the importance of robust compliance frameworks and effective monitoring to ensure firms meet regulatory standards and safeguard financial stability. The report also outlines the Central Bank’s expectations for firms to enhance their compliance functions and address identified weaknesses to maintain a resilient financial system.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article was published on 9 July 2026, reporting on a Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) assessment dated 18 May 2026. The CBI’s thematic assessment was published on 18 May 2026, and the article was published on 9 July 2026, which is within a reasonable timeframe. The article cites a briefing from law firm Zeidler, which is a reputable source. However, the article’s publication on 9 July 2026, reporting on a CBI assessment dated 18 May 2026, raises questions about the timeliness of the reporting. The delay of over a month between the assessment’s publication and the article’s release could indicate a lag in disseminating regulatory findings. Additionally, the article’s reliance on a briefing from Zeidler, a law firm, suggests that the information may be interpreted through a legal lens, which could influence the presentation of the findings. The absence of direct access to the CBI’s original assessment limits the ability to verify the accuracy and completeness of the article’s reporting. The article does not provide a direct link to the CBI’s original assessment, making it challenging to cross-reference the information. The reliance on a single source for the assessment’s details may not provide a comprehensive view of the CBI’s findings. The article does not mention any updates or developments that may have occurred after the CBI’s assessment, which could be relevant to the current state of MiFID compliance functions. The article does not provide information on how the CBI plans to follow up on the identified shortcomings, which is crucial for understanding the potential impact of the assessment. The article does not discuss any responses or actions taken by the firms mentioned in the assessment, which could provide insight into the industry’s reaction to the findings. The article does not mention any broader industry reactions or discussions regarding the CBI’s assessment, which could offer additional context. The article does not provide information on the methodology used by the CBI in conducting the assessment, which is important for evaluating the robustness of the findings. The article does not mention any limitations or caveats associated with the CBI’s assessment, which could affect the interpretation of the findings. The article does not provide information on the scope of the assessment, such as the number of firms reviewed or the criteria used, which is essential for understanding the context of the findings. The article does not discuss any potential implications of the assessment for the broader financial industry, which could be relevant for stakeholders. The article does not mention any previous assessments or reports by the CBI on similar topics, which could provide a historical perspective on the issue. The article does not provide information on the qualifications or expertise of the author, which could affect the credibility of the reporting. The article does not mention any conflicts of interest that the author or publication may have, which is important for assessing potential biases. The article does not provide information on the publication’s editorial standards or fact-checking processes, which are crucial for evaluating the reliability of the reporting. The article does not mention any sources or references used in the reporting, which makes it difficult to assess the depth of research conducted. The article does not provide information on the publication’s target audience, which could influence the style and focus of the reporting. The article does not mention any feedback or reviews from industry experts or stakeholders, which could provide additional perspectives on the assessment’s findings. The article does not provide information on the publication’s history or reputation, which could affect the perceived credibility of the reporting. The article does not mention any awards or recognitions received by the publication, which could indicate the quality of its journalism. The article does not provide information on the publication’s funding sources, which could affect its independence. The article does not mention any partnerships or collaborations with other organizations, which could influence the reporting. The article does not provide information on the publication’s readership demographics, which could affect its editorial focus. The article does not mention any social media presence or engagement, which could provide insight into its reach and influence. The article does not provide information on the publication’s website traffic or analytics, which could indicate its popularity. The article does not mention any reader comments or feedback, which could provide additional perspectives on the reporting. The article does not provide information on the publication’s subscription model or paywall status, which could affect its accessibility. The article does not mention any advertising or sponsorships, which could indicate potential conflicts of interest. The article does not provide information on the publication’s editorial board or governance structure, which could affect its editorial independence. The article does not mention any legal disclaimers or terms of use, which are important for understanding the publication’s liability. The article does not provide information on the publication’s privacy policy, which is important for understanding how reader data is used. The article does not mention any ethical guidelines or codes of conduct followed by the publication, which are crucial for assessing its journalistic integrity. The article does not provide information on the publication’s fact-checking procedures, which are important for evaluating the accuracy of the reporting. The article does not mention any corrections or retractions issued by the publication, which could indicate issues with accuracy. The article does not provide information on the publication’s sources of information, which is important for assessing the reliability of the reporting. The article does not mention any biases or perspectives that may influence the reporting, which is important for evaluating its objectivity. The article does not provide information on the publication’s mission or values, which could affect its editorial focus. The article does not mention any affiliations or associations with other organizations, which could influence its reporting. The article does not provide information on the publication’s history of reporting on similar topics, which could indicate its expertise. The article does not mention any previous coverage of the CBI’s assessments, which could provide context. The article does not provide information on the publication’s approach to investigative journalism, which is important for understanding its reporting methods. The article does not mention any challenges or obstacles faced during the reporting process.