AML Act (a tool in the fight against money laundering) is a protective norm.
In this case, the bank opened a bank account for a client in violation of the AML Act. The plaintiff subsequently transferred the corresponding payment to that account based on a fraudulent e-mail containing a false invoice. Then, with reference to the second sentence of Section 2910 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff demanded damages from the bank. The mentioned provision also protects the relative rights of the injured party, provided that the wrongdoer violates the legal obligation stipulated by the protection norm, i.e. the regulation that protects the individual interests of the injured party.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the purpose of the AML Act is to protect the state's financial system against money laundering and terrorist financing, and not to protect the injured party's individual interests.
The plaintiff, who became a victim of fraud, therefore did not have a right to compensation against the bank that opened the account in violation of the AML Act. 
(NS 25 Cdo 418/2022 of 17 May 2022)