The AML directive is nothing new and was already discussed intensely here.
- anonymity services tools will be banned.
"Tools", i.e. software, are not banned. But if the directive is accepted, is that EU centralized crypto asset service providers (CASPs) cannot offer anonymity tools. Basically, the AML directive treats CASPs like any other banks or fintechs with some few exceptions (like gift/prepaid cards with low amounts).
I have read the original formulation and for me it is even unclear if "privacy coin" accounts would be banned completely, because while they mention privacy-enhancing coins, the scope is on accounts facilatiting the anonymization of funds or transactions, including "through" privacy-enhancing coins. This could mean for example that an exchange perhaps could offer a Monero account but only if it does full KYC and perhaps investigates the origin of the funds on each transaction.
Apparently there was also an initiative to force offline wallet providers (aka non-custodial wallets) to do KYC checks on their users, but that was dropped.
No, it wasn't the offline wallet
providers who would have had to do these checks, but CASPs (like exchanges, centralized wallets etc.). They would have to be forced to check any transaction incoming from a self-hosted wallet. Probably like some exchange in the Netherlands 1-2 years ago which had required its customers depositing funds from self-hosted wallets, to confirm that the origin wallet was controlled by them; or in other cases, indicate the person who sent the funds.
As far as I understand all this, offering mixing services will be illegal, but using such services will not be outlawed.
Somewhat true ... CASPs in the EU won't be able to offer mixing services.
However, it's likely that something like Samourai would not be a CASP under this directive, where CASPs are entities in general which control funds, realize transactions on behalf of customers, or give financial advice. If Samourai only provided a server to receive messages from potential CoinJoin participants, but did not sign these transactions, then it wasn't in control of the funds and also didn't "realize" the transactions.