[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":282},["ShallowReactive",2],{"news-basel-aml-index-updates-methodology-to-reflect-rising-global-fraud-risks-2713":3,"news-basel-aml-index-updates-methodology-to-reflect-rising-global-fraud-risks-2713-similar":41,"i-heroicons:arrow-left-20-solid":277},[4],{"id":5,"status":6,"date_created":7,"date_updated":8,"title":9,"type":10,"body":11,"date":12,"topic":13,"slug":15,"activity":16,"nid":18,"topics":19,"activities":20,"programme":21,"area":21,"websites":22,"language":21,"image":24,"translation_of":21,"countries":35,"tags":36,"authors":37,"images":38,"translations":39,"content":40},10506,"published","2024-11-07T09:34:34.000Z","2026-06-07T10:31:24.000Z","Basel AML Index updates methodology to reflect rising global fraud risks","Blog","The [Basel AML Index](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002F) – the Basel Institute’s ranking and risk assessment tool for money laundering risks around the world – will include indicators of fraud in its 2024 methodology update.\n\nThe changes reflect the growing significance of fraud as a predicate offence to money laundering and as a risk that regulated entities need to consider. Though definitions of fraud vary and data is both poor and inconsistent, the social and economic consequences of fraud make it impossible to ignore in any money laundering risk assessment.\n\nThe changes will be implemented in the 13th Public Edition of the Basel AML Index, due to be published on 2 December this year, as well as in the subscription-based [Expert Edition and Expert Edition Plus](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fexpert-edition) from that point onwards.\n\n### Spotlight: fraud on the rise\n\nStatistics from global financial centres (e.g. [US](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.thomsonreuters.com\u002Fen-us\u002Fposts\u002Finvestigation-fraud-and-risk\u002Fsars-fraud-2024\u002F), [UK](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk\u002Fwho-we-are\u002Fpublications\u002F632-2022-sars-annual-report-1\u002Ffile), [Switzerland](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fedpol.admin.ch\u002Ffedpol\u002Fen\u002Fhome\u002Fkriminalitaet\u002Fgeldwaescherei\u002Fjb.html), [Canada](https:\u002F\u002Ffintrac-canafe.canada.ca\u002Fpublications\u002Far\u002F2023\u002Far2023-eng.pdf)) indicate that fraud is among the top offences reported in suspicious activity reports submitted by banks and other regulated entities.\n\nAccording to the [U.S. 2024 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment](https:\u002F\u002Fhome.treasury.gov\u002Fsystem\u002Ffiles\u002F136\u002F2024-National-Money-Laundering-Risk-Assessment.pdf), \"\\[f\\]raud remains the largest and most significant proceed-generating crime for which funds are laundered in or through the United States.\" [Singapore’s 2024 National Risk Assessment](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mof.gov.sg\u002Fdocs\u002Fdefault-source\u002Fdefault-document-library\u002Fml-national-risk-assessment.pdf?sfvrsn=3edc6832_3) likewise identifies fraud – particularly cyber-enabled fraud – as one of the country’s key money laundering threats.\n\nThe threat posed by fraud is not just about financial systems, but about its devastating impact on ordinary individuals and companies. Introducing the [2024 INTERPOL Global Financial Fraud Assessment](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.interpol.int\u002Fen\u002FNews-and-Events\u002FNews\u002F2024\u002FINTERPOL-Financial-Fraud-assessment-A-global-threat-boosted-by-technology), INTERPOL’s Secretary General referred to an “epidemic in the growth of financial fraud, leading to individuals, often vulnerable people, and companies being defrauded on a massive and global scale”. The assessment highlights the prevalence of investment, romance and advance payment fraud schemes.\n\nMethods used to commit fraud are also becoming more sophisticated and diversified. Technological advancements, including in artificial intelligence and virtual assets, can make (cyber) fraud and the laundering of proceeds easier to commit and more complex to investigate. The FATF, INTERPOL and Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units have joined forces on a new initiative to [counter illicit financial flows from cyber-enabled fraud](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002FMethodsandtrends\u002Fillicit-financial-flows-cyber-enabled-fraud.html), noting its link to other forms of criminality including human trafficking and proliferation financing.\n\n### Challenges around definitions and data\n\nBased on discussions with leading financial crime experts at two annual review meetings, we have decided to integrate fraud indicators into the Basel AML Index [methodology](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fmethodology).\n\nThis decision comes with challenges, including:\n\n*   the broad and disputed definition and scope of “fraud”;\n*   the complex, cross-border nature of many forms of fraud and the difficulty in assigning risks to a particular jurisdiction;\n*   poor data availability, exacerbated by significant underreporting and no global standard.\n\nOther indicators of ML\u002FTF risk related to financial crimes of a cross-border nature face similar challenges. Lack of reliable data and analysis in particular is a major [obstacle to countering fraud risks](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.interpol.int\u002Fen\u002FNews-and-Events\u002FNews\u002F2024\u002FINTERPOL-Financial-Fraud-assessment-A-global-threat-boosted-by-technology).\n\n### Pragmatic approach\n\nThe Basel AML Index is primarily a framework for assessing geographic risk, defined as a jurisdiction’s vulnerability to money laundering and related financial crimes and its capacities to counter these threats. and its capacities to counter it. The Index does not attempt to measure the actual amount of money laundering activity.\n\nTherefore we believe it is appropriate for the Basel AML Index methodology to incorporate fraud data with clear caveats and a transparent recognition of the above challenges and weaknesses.\n\nGiven the lack of a globally accepted definition, we use the term fraud loosely as an umbrella term for activities that involve deliberate deception of an individual or entity for the sake of obtaining a financial gain. These crimes are often transnational, orchestrated by organised criminal actors and facilitated by technology.\n\nFraud-related data will be sourced from the [Global Organized Crime Index](https:\u002F\u002Focindex.net\u002F). This source most closely aligns with the Basel AML Index standards on data quality and coverage.\n\nData will be taken from two categories:\n\n*   “Financial crimes”, covering financial fraud, tax evasion, embezzlement and misuse of funds\n*   “Cyber-dependent crimes”, including malware, hacking, ransomware and cryptocurrency fraud\n\nBoth indicators will join indicators of corruption in Domain 2 of the Basel AML Index methodology, with a weighting of 5 percent and 2.5 percent respectively.\n\n### Other changes\n\nThree outdated indicators will be removed, bringing the total to 17:\n\n*   \"Extent of corporate transparency\" from the World Bank’s discontinued _Doing Business_ report.\n*   “Strength of auditing and reporting standards” and “Institutional pillar” from the World Economic Forum’s discontinued _Global Competitiveness Report._\n\nData from the Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index will move to Domain 3 on financial transparency and standards. This will enable Basel AML Index Expert Edition users to more clearly separate jurisdictions’ performance on financial transparency from other aspects of their anti-money laundering framework.\n\nMinor adjustments have been made to the weighting to account for the above changes.\n\n### Learn more\n\n*   Join the [online launch event on 4 December 2024](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fnode\u002F2714).\n*   View the Basel AML Index and its current [methodology](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fmethodology) (prior to the above changes).\n*   Sign up for the [Expert Edition](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fexpert-edition) or Expert Edition Plus to explore the current data – it’s free for users from public-sector, non-profit and multilateral entities as well as journalists and academics.","2024-10-29",[14],"Anti-Money Laundering","basel-aml-index-updates-methodology-to-reflect-rising-global-fraud-risks-2713",[17],"Basel AML Index",2713,[14,17],[17],null,[23,17],"Main page",{"id":25,"storage":26,"filename_disk":27,"filename_download":28,"title":9,"type":29,"created_on":30,"modified_on":30,"charset":21,"filesize":31,"width":32,"height":33,"duration":21,"embed":21,"description":21,"location":21,"tags":21,"metadata":34,"focal_point_x":21,"focal_point_y":21,"tus_id":21,"tus_data":21,"uploaded_on":30},"d49abadd-b50c-42d9-bba6-a10ee75414f0","local","d49abadd-b50c-42d9-bba6-a10ee75414f0.webp","tmp.webp","image\u002Fwebp","2025-05-12T21:10:12.000Z",25636,1400,732,{},[],[],[],[],[],[],[42,70,100,123,145,171,191,214,236,257],{"id":43,"body":44,"status":6,"type":10,"date":45,"slug":46,"title":47,"image":48,"countries":49,"topic":50,"activity":52,"tags":54,"nid":55,"topics":56,"activities":58,"authors":59,"images":61,"websites":21,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":62,"translations":63,"translation_of":21,"user_created":64,"date_created":65,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":67,"content":68,"link":69},10608,"_Criminal assets can cross borders in hours, while international asset recovery often struggles to keep pace. The INTERPOL Silver Notice is designed to close this gap by enabling earlier identification and tracing of criminal assets across jurisdictions. Can this new instrument fundamentally change how law enforcement responds to the rapid flight of illicit wealth?_\n\nCriminal funds can be moved across jurisdictions, layered through shell companies or converted into digital assets in a matter of hours. By contrast, international legal cooperation frequently moves at a far slower pace. The mismatch between the speed of asset flight and the pace of enforcement is one of the central reasons why several international bodies estimate that a very high proportion of [criminal assets](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.interpol.int\u002Fen\u002FNews-and-Events\u002FNews\u002F2025\u002FINTERPOL-publishes-first-Silver-Notice-targeting-criminal-assets#:~:text=Valdecy%20Urquiza%2C%20INTERPOL%20Secretary%20General,of%20criminal%20assets%20remain%20unrecovered.) ultimately remain unrecovered.\n\nINTERPOL’s Silver Notices seek to narrow this gap. They provide law enforcement with an early, structured mechanism to identify and trace assets across borders, strengthening one of the weakest stages of asset recovery: the initial [identification of criminal assets](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fblog\u002Finterpols-silver-notice-paving-way-improved-asset-recovery). For practitioners dealing with fraud, corruption, money laundering and organised crime, Silver Notices reflect a shift toward treating asset recovery as an enforcement priority rather than merely a consequence of criminal conviction.\n\n### The state of play\n\nINTERPOL launched the Silver Notice as a pilot initiative in January 2025, involving 52 jurisdictions across all regions. [As of November 2025, 133 Silver Notices and 35 Diffusions had been published](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.interpol.int\u002FNews-and-Events\u002FNews\u002F2025\u002FTogether-Against-Crime-INTERPOL-General-Assembly-approves-blueprint-for-future) at the request of 39 countries, linked to suspected financial harm exceeding EUR 30 billion, according to INTERPOL.\n\nSwitzerland does not currently participate in the pilot and therefore does not issue Silver Notices. However, Swiss authorities may still receive Silver Notices and share information through existing police cooperation channels.\n\nIn November 2025, during the 93rd INTERPOL General Assembly in Marrakech, delegates approved the extension of the Silver Notice pilot, allowing additional jurisdictions to participate. For practitioners, this expansion matters: broader participation directly increases the likelihood that assets can be identified and preserved before they are moved beyond the reach of enforcement authorities.\n\n### What is the Silver Notice?\n\nINTERPOL Notices enable countries to share critical criminal intelligence and request operational assistance across borders. A Silver Notice is a non-coercive intelligence tool designed to support the identification and tracing of assets linked to serious criminal offences. It does not, by itself, authorise the freezing, seizure or confiscation of assets. Any such measures must be taken in accordance with national law and applicable judicial procedures.\n\nIn practice, Silver Notices may be used to:\n\n*   flag bank accounts, real estate, corporate holdings and digital assets;\n*   identify beneficial owners or persons exercising control over assets;\n*   enable secure and structured intelligence sharing between participating jurisdictions.\n\n### From identification to legal action\n\nOne of the most persistent challenges in cross-border asset recovery lies in the slow and often complex operation of Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) mechanisms used to gather evidence or freeze assets. Evidentiary thresholds and procedural requirements vary widely across jurisdictions, and delays in cooperation can allow assets to be dissipated.\n\nWhen a Silver Notice leads to the identification of assets, the jurisdiction in which they are located informs the requesting country and INTERPOL, outlines domestic legal options, and acts within its legal framework. Early bilateral engagement allows investigators and prosecutors to align MLA requests with domestic standards, shortening the transition from intelligence to evidence and from tracing to freezing, helping preserve asset value and improving the prospects of confiscation and victim restitution or compensation.\n\n### Safeguards and limits\n\nBefore any Notice is circulated, it must pass a strict legal compliance review to ensure that it complies with INTERPOL’s Constitution, including the prohibition on matters of a political, military, racial or religious character. These safeguards are essential to maintaining trust between member countries and protecting the system from misuse, particularly in sensitive or high-profile cases.\n\nThe Silver Notice is also deliberately designed to avoid coercive overreach. Key safeguards include:\n\n*   restriction to serious criminal offences;\n*   a requirement for a clear factual link between the assets and suspected criminal conduct;\n*   use within the framework of national legal systems, including judicial or prosecutorial oversight where required.\n\nAt the same time, Silver Notices are not without limitations. For example, in politically sensitive cases, careful scrutiny is required to ensure that asset-tracing requests are not used to advance improper objectives. This makes the robustness and independence of INTERPOL’s compliance review mechanisms particularly important.\n\nUltimately, Silver Notices are not a solution to all asset recovery challenges. Their effectiveness depends on domestic legal framework and the willingness and ability of authorities to act on shared intelligence. They enhance international cooperation, but they do not replace the need for strong national asset recovery regimes or effective MLA processes.\n\n### Closing the enforcement gap\n\nThe speed at which criminal assets move across borders continues to outpace traditional enforcement tools. Silver Notices respond to this challenge by enabling earlier asset tracing and more timely operational engagement between jurisdictions.\n\nMore broadly, Silver Notices reflect an evolving approach to financial crime enforcement that prioritises proactive, intelligence-led intervention over reactive asset recovery at the end of lengthy criminal proceedings. Silver Notices are an enabler, not a shortcut. Used effectively and responsibly, they can strengthen the strategic focus on asset recovery and materially improve the prospects of asset confiscation and victim restitution.\n\n_This blog is also published on the [Hochschule Luzern Economic Crime Blog here](https:\u002F\u002Fhub.hslu.ch\u002Feconomiccrime\u002F?p=6536)._","2026-03-16","interpol-silver-notices-speeding-up-the-tracing-of-criminal-assets-2944","INTERPOL Silver Notices: Speeding up the tracing of criminal assets","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fdaf2f81c-8270-46aa-93a2-3a8a469a7420?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[14,51],"Asset Recovery",[53],"Insights",[],2944,[14,57],"Asset Recovery and Enforcement",[53],[60],1371,[],"English",[],"03bebfd8-0b40-4a2a-820d-b9d9c13b9de6","2026-04-15T22:45:19.000Z","3d9ff205-1640-4f34-b5b6-86977f51bbd6","2026-05-29T22:22:40.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Finterpol-silver-notices-speeding-up-the-tracing-of-criminal-assets-2944",{"id":71,"body":72,"status":6,"type":10,"date":73,"slug":74,"title":75,"image":76,"countries":77,"topic":78,"activity":79,"tags":81,"nid":90,"topics":91,"activities":92,"authors":93,"images":94,"websites":21,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":62,"translations":95,"translation_of":21,"user_created":64,"date_created":96,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":97,"content":98,"link":99},10602,"_By J. Edward (Ned) Conway, Executive Secretary, The Wolfsberg Group_\n\nAs virtual assets move into the mainstream of traditional finance, tricky questions arise. What does a reasonable, risk-based control framework look like for banks that provide services to virtual asset service providers (VASPs)? And how can compliance teams strengthen private-to-private information sharing to better detect suspicious activity?\n\nThese were some of the questions tackled by the [Wolfsberg Group](https:\u002F\u002Fwolfsberg-group.org\u002F) at the 9th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets, organised by the Basel Institute on Governance, Europol and UNODC and held in Vienna on 28–29 October 2025.\n\nThe Wolfsberg Group is an association of 12 global banks that develops frameworks and guidance for the management of financial crime risks. Housed at the Basel Institute on Governance, this long-standing initiative brings together senior financial crime compliance leaders through various working groups, including one dedicated to virtual assets.\n\nThis flagship event provided a valuable platform for the Group to explain its [Stablecoin Guidance](https:\u002F\u002Fwolfsberg-group.org\u002Fresources\u002F204\u002F), gauge interest in a specific Due Diligence Questionnaire focused on VASPs, and further advance efforts to break down silos in private-to-private information sharing.\n\nThis blog summarises some of the key discussions – dialogues that are continuing in dedicated meetings and consultations of the Wolfsberg Group with members, regulators and institutional partners.\n\n### Regulatory clarity as a catalyst for TradFi–VASP relationships?\n\nDay 1 of the conference saw Ned Conway, Executive Secretary of the Wolfsberg Group, moderate a high-level panel discussion featuring representatives from Circle, Bullish and Société Générale on the theme _“Bridging the TradFi–DeFi Gap.”_\n\nThe panel discussed the barriers to relationship building between traditional finance (TradFi) institutions such as banks and VASPs such as cryptocurrency exchanges and stablecoin issuers. The speakers noted that a lack of trust and understanding persists, particularly around risks specific to virtual assets.\n\nThat is one reason that TradFi is slow to onboard VASPs as clients and provide them with the banking services they need in order to operate. However, stablecoins are helping bridge this gap by bringing parts of the crypto universe under regulatory frameworks.\n\nTradFi institutions underlined that they would benefit from clearer scenarios from regulators on where collaboration and information sharing would be permissible between regulated entities and VASPs. Recent [guidance issued by regulators on stablecoins and virtual assets in Asia](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.hkma.gov.hk\u002Fmedia\u002Feng\u002Fdoc\u002Fkey-functions\u002Fifc\u002Fstablecoin-issuers\u002FGuideline_on_supervision_of_licensed_stablecoin_issuers_eng.pdf), in particular, could help improve confidence both ways in the TradFi-VASP relationship.\n\n### Aligning risk appetite, due diligence and monitoring for suspicious activity\n\nOn Day 2, a dedicated Wolfsberg side event brought together VASPs, FinTech firms and traditional banks for in-depth discussions. Representatives from several Wolfsberg member banks – Deutsche Bank, Citi, UBS, Société Générale, and Bank of America – joined the sessions.\n\nThe agenda focused on frameworks for information sharing, but the discussions touched upon a range of hot topics including:\n\n*   risk appetite and the risk-based approach;\n*   payment transparency (i.e. the [travel rule](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.eba.europa.eu\u002Fpublications-and-media\u002Fpress-releases\u002Feba-issues-travel-rule-guidance-tackle-money-laundering-and-terrorist-financing-transfers-funds-and)); and\n*   approaches to monitoring for suspicious activity.\n\nDuring the discussions, participants highlighted that one of the main barriers to effective collaboration between traditional financial institutions and VASPs is a lack of mutual trust. Both sectors face difficulties in interacting with each other.\n\nThe [Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Due Diligence Questionnaire](https:\u002F\u002Fwolfsberg-group.org\u002Fresources?type=cbddq-fccq&category=questionnaires) (CBDDQ) is useful for setting standards, but onboarding challenges could be overcome by framing risk in common language. Many viewed the current onboarding approaches as fragmented, and expressed strong support for the Wolfsberg Group to develop standardised guidance and a due diligence questionnaire for VASPs.\n\nQuestions remain about what is “reasonable” and “risk-based” for VASPs, especially for smaller institutions, and whether banks should monitor blockchain transactions themselves. VASPs need to be able to articulate their risk appetite, and how this changes as they continue to develop innovative products and services.\n\nVASP participants viewed the Wolfsberg Group’s [Stablecoin Guidance](https:\u002F\u002Fwolfsberg-group.org\u002Fresources\u002F204\u002F) as applicable beyond stablecoin issuers to the wider VASP ecosystem. This is particularly true for the tailored questions on the underlying control environment, and the linking of risk appetite directly to monitoring approaches.\n\n### Improving private-private information sharing on suspicious activity\n\nDiscussion on information sharing between TradFi and VASPs highlighted that this can rely heavily on personal relationships across entities, limiting scalability.\n\nVASPs showed concern around sharing wallet addresses under private-to-private information sharing frameworks, given geopolitical trends and concerns around the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, consensus emerged that better data sharing both increases the quality of suspicious activity reports (SARs) and reduces SAR volumes.\n\nParticularly on this latter point, activities often thought to be suspicious in a silo are better understood when viewed from multiple perspectives, confirming the importance of information exchange.\n\n### Continuing to build bridges as the financial system evolves\n\nBridging the gap between TradFi and DeFi remains a central theme in the Wolfsberg Group’s strategy. The Vienna events offered a unique opportunity to engage key stakeholders across the sector and advance this important dialogue.\n\nThe side event was opened by Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director of the Basel Institute on Governance. The Wolfsberg Group extends its sincere thanks to the Basel Institute for the opportunity to co-host this side event and to participate in the 9th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets.\n\n### Learn more\n\n*   Learn more about the [Wolfsberg Group](https:\u002F\u002Fwolfsberg-group.org\u002F) and explores its guidance and [resources](https:\u002F\u002Fwolfsberg-group.org\u002Fresources) on managing financial crime risk, including its [Stablecoin Guidance](https:\u002F\u002Fwolfsberg-group.org\u002Fresources\u002F204\u002F).\n*   Learn more about the [9th Global Conference](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fnews\u002Fglobal-experts-advance-joint-fight-against-crypto-enabled-crime) and see selected recordings.\n*   Find out about the [10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002F10crc) on 15–16 September 2026 in Luxembourg.","2026-02-11","advancing-trust-and-standards-between-banks-and-virtual-asset-service-providers-lessons-from-wolfsberg-group-events-at-the-9th-global-conference-2929","Advancing trust and standards between banks and virtual asset service providers – lessons from Wolfsberg Group events at the 9th Global Conference","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fc0f797c0-3af2-47b9-92aa-20efc3f95cce?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[14,51],[80],"Events",[82,86],{"tags_id":83},{"id":84,"name":85},854,"Virtual assets",{"tags_id":87},{"id":88,"name":89},818,"Anti-money laundering",2929,[14,57],[80],[],[],[],"2026-02-27T15:07:18.000Z","2026-05-29T22:22:39.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fadvancing-trust-and-standards-between-banks-and-virtual-asset-service-providers-lessons-from-wolfsberg-group-events-at-the-9th-global-conference-2929",{"id":101,"body":102,"status":6,"type":103,"date":104,"slug":105,"title":106,"image":107,"countries":108,"topic":110,"activity":111,"tags":113,"nid":114,"topics":115,"activities":116,"authors":117,"images":118,"websites":21,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":62,"translations":119,"translation_of":21,"user_created":64,"date_created":120,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":97,"content":121,"link":122},10603,"The fight against criminal misuse of cryptoassets enters its next chapter.\n\nJoin us on 15–16 September 2026 for the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets – held this year in Luxembourg at the European Convention Centre and online.\n\nThis landmark edition will be hosted by Luxembourg’s [Bureau de gestion des avoirs](https:\u002F\u002Fbga.gouvernement.lu\u002Ffr.html) (BGA), alongside the Basel Institute on Governance, Europol and UNODC as co-organisers.\n\nRenowned as a leading global forum, the conference brings together practitioners from across sectors and regions to tackle the evolving threats posed by criminal exploitation of cryptoassets and related services.\n\nExpect cutting-edge insights, candid exchanges and practical solutions aimed at safeguarding individuals, businesses and the integrity of financial systems worldwide.\n\n*   Day 1 – 15 September: Open to experts from all sectors, with a strong focus on public–private collaboration, emerging risks and real-world practice.\n*   Day 2 – 16 September: Reserved for public authorities, including law enforcement, prosecutors, financial intelligence units, asset management offices and regulators, with in-depth case studies and operational insights.\n\n### Learn more\n\n*   See more information on the official [10th Global Conference event page](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002F10crc).\n*   Sign up to the [conference mailing list](http:\u002F\u002Feepurl.com\u002FiCwSMo) to be notified when registration opens.\n*   If you would like to submit a proposal to present, moderate a panel discussion or lead a breakout session, [please use this form](https:\u002F\u002Fforms.gle\u002FvXZjotdYgxbk1oRT6).","News","2026-02-10","save-the-date-10th-global-conference-on-criminal-finances-and-cryptoassets-2932","Save the date: 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F7048f59e-5619-4a67-a552-67d57cbf2cb5?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[109],7805,[14,51],[80,112],"Partnerships",[],2932,[14,57],[80,112],[],[],[],"2026-02-27T15:07:20.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fsave-the-date-10th-global-conference-on-criminal-finances-and-cryptoassets-2932",{"id":124,"body":125,"status":6,"type":10,"date":126,"slug":127,"title":128,"image":129,"countries":130,"topic":21,"activity":21,"tags":131,"nid":21,"topics":132,"activities":133,"authors":134,"images":135,"websites":136,"area":137,"programme":21,"language":62,"translations":139,"translation_of":21,"user_created":140,"date_created":141,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":142,"content":143,"link":144},10592,"\u003Cp>In a world that feels increasingly unsettled, with rising concerns over corruption, organised crime and illicit finance, it is encouraging to see that the Basel AML Index does not show global money laundering risks getting worse. The average score across all jurisdictions has even improved slightly – and in today’s climate even a modest hint of progress is worth noting. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>Still, we all know that global averages are hardly meaningful. What matters is what people experience in their own countries and regions, where threats like corruption, fraud, environmental crime and drug trafficking continue to evolve fast and affect their everyday lives. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>I have spent more than two decades working to strengthen governance and the rule of law around the world, and I have seen firsthand the power of data and evidence to drive change. With respect to complex topics such as corruption, money laundering and other financial crimes, this is no simple task. They are difficult to define, to quantify and to track over time. But unless we make a sincere effort to assess the risks, and acknowledge where the gaps and uncertainties lie, policymakers and practitioners are left working in the dark. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>This is the purpose of the Basel AML Index. It is not a simple score to be copy-pasted into a risk assessment or put out in a press release. It is a tool to explore what lies behind a jurisdiction’s risk profile. Many users rely on the headline Public Edition score, but there is much to be gained by looking deeper. The Expert Edition, free for the public sector, non-profits, academia and the media, and reasonably priced for private firms, gives an overview of all 17 indicators and supports more informed decisions. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>Look behind the curtain and you will see that the Basel AML Index recognises that tackling money laundering is not only about laws, regulations and enforcement. It also depends on independent political and legal systems, a free and active media and real accountability in the public sector. These elements are essential to a jurisdiction’s resilience to financial crime, so the Basel AML Index incorporates measures of these as well as other factors more commonly associated with financial crime. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>Measurement alone, however, is not enough; it is just the starting point for progress. That is why the Basel Institute works directly with partner countries to help them understand their risks and strengthen their resilience to money laundering and related financial crimes. We often undertake this work in the context of preparations for Financial Action Task Force (FATF) evaluations or ongoing efforts to leave the FATF grey list.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>Last month we welcomed Mozambique’s exit from the grey list after intensive work by our team and other partners to support improvements in the country’s anti-money laundering framework and asset recovery capacity. Similar assistance is underway with other partner countries, and we continue to engage with FATF-style regional bodies such as GAFILAT and ESAAMLG as an active observer member. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>If we can say one thing for sure about the future, it is that financial crime will continue to evolve at speed. But I remain hopeful, because progress in tackling it is possible when decisions are rooted in solid evidence. By shedding light on the underlying factors driving money laundering risks at the jurisdiction level, the Basel AML Index aims to help focus attention and resources where they matter most. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002F\">Explore the Basel AML Index\u003C\u002Fa> and \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fbasel-aml-index-2025\">download this year's report\u003C\u002Fa>.\u003C\u002Fp>\n","2025-12-11","elizabeth-andersen-foreword-to-the-basel-aml-index-report","Elizabeth Andersen: Foreword to the Basel AML Index report","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fed3f18dd-4ed7-474a-911d-3048d406faf7?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[],[14,17],[17],[],[],[17],[138],"Asset Recovery & Enforcement",[],"545a204d-e41b-4882-afda-481ecf3fd971","2025-12-11T09:55:09.000Z","2026-06-07T10:31:25.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Felizabeth-andersen-foreword-to-the-basel-aml-index-report",{"id":146,"body":147,"status":6,"type":10,"date":148,"slug":149,"title":150,"image":151,"countries":152,"topic":21,"activity":21,"tags":153,"nid":21,"topics":157,"activities":158,"authors":159,"images":161,"websites":162,"area":163,"programme":165,"language":62,"translations":167,"translation_of":21,"user_created":140,"date_created":168,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":142,"content":169,"link":170},10588,"\u003Cem>The following are key findings of the 14th Basel AML Index Public Edition – an independent, data-based ranking of money laundering and related financial crime risks worldwide. \u003C\u002Fem>\u003Cem>Risk, as measured by the Basel AML Index, is defined as a country's vulnerability to money laundering and related financial crimes and its capacities to counter these threats. The Index does not attempt to measure the actual amount of money laundering activity. \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fdownloads\">Download the full report and related resources.\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fem>\n\n### Not a race to the bottom – but a slow drift towards the middle\n\n\u003Cstrong>The global average score in the Basel AML Index improved only slightly in 2025\u003C\u002Fstrong>, from 5.30 to 5.28 (on a 0–10 scale where 10 equals maximum risk). The change is statistically insignificant. However, the fact that the global average is not \u003Cem>worsening \u003C\u002Fem>offers some reassurance that efforts to counter money laundering are not being entirely outpaced by fast-moving threats, including the rising use of virtual assets and artificial intelligence for illicit purposes.\n\n\u003Cstrong>Thirteen new jurisdictions were added to this year’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Franking\">Public Edition\u003C\u002Fa> \u003C\u002Fstrong>due to an increase in available data, bringing the total number covered to 177. Myanmar, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo remain at the top of the risk ranking. Finland is newly crowned as the lowest-risk jurisdiction for money laundering this year, despite a modest increase in its risk score, followed by Iceland and San Marino.\n\nOf the jurisdictions already assessed in last year’s Public Edition, 54 percent (88 jurisdictions) improved their risk scores this year. Forty-three percent (71 jurisdictions) saw their scores worsen and 3 percent (five jurisdictions) remained unchanged.\n\n\u003Cstrong>Overall, the global picture shows a slow drift towards the middle\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Improvements among several higher-risk jurisdictions – particularly in Africa – are encouraging, but they are offset by gradual declines among historically strong performers.\n\n### How jurisdictions performed across different risk domains\n\n\u003Cstrong>There was modest progress in the strength and quality of AML\u002FCFT\u002FCPF frameworks globally\u003C\u002Fstrong>, with the average risk level improving from 5.58 to 5.54. Risk levels in corruption and fraud also edged down (5.12 to 5.09).\n\n\u003Cstrong>One of the most notable deteriorations occurred in the area of financial transparency and standards\u003C\u002Fstrong>, highlighting growing concerns about beneficial ownership transparency and weaknesses in tax and financial regulation. This is particularly troubling at a time when mechanisms for evading oversight – such as the use of virtual assets (see page 19) – are expanding. Risks related to public accountability also increased slightly, from 4.23 to 4.35.\n\nIn terms of political and legal risks, the lack of meaningful change in the global average (from 4.45 to 4.46) masks significant variation between regions and individual jurisdictions.\n\n### Regional picture\n\n\u003Cstrong>Four regions saw their average risk scores increase\u003C\u002Fstrong>: North America, the EU and Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa.\n\n\u003Cstrong>In the EU and Western Europe, roughly 40 percent of jurisdictions received worse scores than last year\u003C\u002Fstrong>. While most remained in the same risk category, their worsening scores suggest that historically strong performers may now be stagnating or slipping back.\n\nIn contrast, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean saw small overall improvements.\n\n\u003Cstrong>Sub-Saharan Africa stands out\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Despite a still elevated regional average score (6.14), 70 percent of jurisdictions in this region improved significantly in 2025, and six left the FATF grey list after demonstrating improvements in their AML\u002FCFT frameworks. Seven of the top ten global improvers are African countries, and two – Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire – moved from the higher to the medium risk category.\n\n\u003Ctable>\n\u003Ctbody>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>\n\u003Cstrong>Top 10 improvers (score ↓) \u003C\u002Fstrong>\n\u003C\u002Ftd>\n\u003Ctd>\n\u003Cstrong>Top 10 decliners (score ↑) \u003C\u002Fstrong>\n\u003C\u002Ftd>\n\u003C\u002Ftr>\n\u003Ctr>\n\u003Ctd>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Liberia, Mozambique, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Burkina Faso, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Nigeria, Mali, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Tanzania, Côte d’Ivoire, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Armenia, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Philippines, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Croatia \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003C\u002Ftd>\n\u003Ctd>\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Kazakhstan, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Lithuania, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei), \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Serbia, Costa Rica, Germany, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Suriname, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Barbados, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Greece, \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>Nicaragua \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003C\u002Ftd>\n\u003C\u002Ftr>\n\u003C\u002Ftbody>\n\u003C\u002Ftable>\n\n### A more nuanced understanding of risk levels\n\nThe overall picture is not one of global decline, but of a gradual clustering in the middle of the risk spectrum. This underscores the need for clearer distinctions between risk categories. For that reason, the \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fexpert-edition\">Expert Edition of the Basel AML Index\u003C\u002Fa> introduces a more balanced three-tier system this year, replacing the broad middle band that previously captured most jurisdictions.\n\u003Cp>The change reduces the overcrowding in the “medium risk” category and improves comparability between jurisdictions.\u003C\u002Fp>","2025-12-08","key-findings","Key findings of the Basel AML Index 2025","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F989a19a3-3c43-42e7-a7eb-b716058a6c3f?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[154],{"tags_id":155},{"id":156,"name":17},1346,[14,17],[17],[160],1363,[],[17],[138,164],"Business Integrity & Governance",[166],"International Centre for Asset Recovery",[],"2025-12-05T11:07:25.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fkey-findings",{"id":172,"body":173,"status":6,"type":10,"date":148,"slug":174,"title":175,"image":176,"countries":177,"topic":21,"activity":21,"tags":178,"nid":21,"topics":179,"activities":180,"authors":181,"images":183,"websites":184,"area":185,"programme":186,"language":62,"translations":187,"translation_of":21,"user_created":140,"date_created":188,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":142,"content":189,"link":190},10589,"This feature appears in the 2025 Basel AML Index Public Edition report. \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fdownloads\">Download the full report and related resources\u003C\u002Fa>.\n\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Ch3>Key takeaways \u003C\u002Fh3>\n\n\u003Cul>\n\t\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>A risk-based approach has long been at the core of efforts to mitigate risks of financial crimes \u003C\u002Fstrong>like money laundering and terrorist financing. But application of the approach has been uneven, often focusing too heavily on high-risk areas while paying too little attention to where risks are lower. \u003C\u002Fli>\n\t\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Global AML\u002FCFT standards now place stronger emphasis on applying the risk-based approach \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cstrong>\u003Cem>proportionately\u003C\u002Fem>\u003C\u002Fstrong>, encouraging the use of simplified measures in lower-risk situations. \u003C\u002Fli>\n\t\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Many financial institutions and authorities find it difficult to assess or provide guidance on what constitutes lower risks \u003C\u002Fstrong>in specific contexts. This limits the use of simplified measures and adds to compliance burdens. \u003C\u002Fli>\n\t\u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>The Basel AML Index’s updated risk classification offers a more nuanced, data-driven way \u003C\u002Fstrong>to identify lower-risk jurisdictions and to support the application of a proportionate risk-based approach. \u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\n\n\n### Proportionality: why clarity on lower-risk jurisdictions matters\n\nThe \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Ftopics\u002Ffatf-recommendations.html\">risk-based approach\u003C\u002Fa> has become the backbone of efforts to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing and related financial crimes. Its logic is straightforward: understand the different levels of risk, then apply stronger or lighter controls as appropriate.\n\nYet in many jurisdictions as well as in the private sector, the risk-based approach is not used as effectively as intended. Most attention is placed on identifying \u003Cem>high-risk \u003C\u002Fem>clients, products or jurisdictions – for example, through the FATF’s black and grey lists, international sanctions regimes or high-risk lists. By contrast, there has been much less discussion about what should count as \u003Cem>lower risk\u003C\u002Fem>.\n\nThis gap matters because lower-risk situations are where simplified measures should be used by financial institutions. If they are not, resources are not used efficiently and people or organisations can be unjustifiably \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002FFinancialinclusionandnpoissues\u002Fguidance-financial-inclusion-aml-tf-measures.html\">excluded from accessing financial services\u003C\u002Fa>. Yet financial institutions often hesitate to use simplified measures out of fear that they may not be accepted by supervisors, which may not have clearly articulated their own risk tolerance.\n\nThe FATF, which sets global AML\u002FCFT standards, has recognised this imbalance and the unintended consequences. \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002FFatfrecommendations\u002Fupdate-standards-promote-financial-conclusion-feb-2025.html\">Updates to its Recommendations\u003C\u002Fa> this year encourage jurisdictions not only to \u003Cem>consider \u003C\u002Fem>allowing simplified measures for lower-risk situations but to actually \u003Cem>allow and encourage \u003C\u002Fem>them.\n\nThe FATF has also shifted to using the word \u003Cem>proportionate \u003C\u002Fem>instead of \u003Cem>commensurate \u003C\u002Fem>to describe how controls should be applied. While this may sound like semantics, it does signal a stronger expectation that AML\u002FCFT measures should not be uniform or mechanistic, but carefully calibrated in a way that ensures effectiveness and reduces compliance burdens.\n\n### The missing piece: what exactly is “lower risk”?\n\nEven with this shift, many authorities and financial institutions find it difficult to decide what genuinely counts as lower risk. According to our review of several recent national risk assessments from different regions, and from discussions with public and private-sector experts, several factors contribute to this uncertainty:\n\n- \u003Cstrong>Lack of clear definitions\u003C\u002Fstrong>. The \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Ftopics\u002Ffatf-recommendations.html\">FATF distinguishes\u003C\u002Fa> between \u003Cem>low risk \u003C\u002Fem>or (where isolated exemptions from AML\u002FCFT measures may be possible) and \u003Cem>lower risk \u003C\u002Fem>(where simplified measures may be appropriate). Most national risk assessments do not draw this distinction.\n- \u003Cstrong>Different approaches\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Some jurisdictions use structured risk scales in their national risk assessments. \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Famlcft.bnm.gov.my\u002Fpublications\">Malaysia’s\u003C\u002Fa> national risk assessment, for example, uses a four-band model: high, medium-high, medium and low. Others, such as that of the \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fhome.treasury.gov\u002Fnews\u002Fpress-releases\u002Fjy2080\">U.S.\u003C\u002Fa>, describe risks in narrative form without assigning categories. \n- \u003Cstrong>Unhelpful shortcuts\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Jurisdiction risk models sometimes rely mainly on sanctions lists or lists of offshore centres, which offer a limited picture of financial crime risk.\n\n### Why clearer lower-risk categories support better outcomes\n\nWhen lower-risk jurisdictions and other situations are clearly identified, the benefits are significant:\n\n- \u003Cstrong>Better resource allocation and reduced compliance burdens\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Staff and systems can be better directed towards higher-risk areas instead of being spread thinly.\n- \u003Cstrong>Improved quality of suspicious activity reports\u003C\u002Fstrong>. Financial intelligence units often complain of defensive reporting, i.e. reporting entities submitting large numbers of suspicious activity reports mainly to protect themselves from possible criticism, rather than because the activity is genuinely suspicious. Specifically allowing simplified measures in lower-risk situations would help to reduce this.\n- \u003Cstrong>Less de-risking\u003C\u002Fstrong>. When risk is assessed more accurately, financial institutions are less likely to withdraw services from whole countries or sectors based on broad assumptions.\n- \u003Cstrong>Public authorities \u003C\u002Fstrong>can also distinguish between jurisdictions or regions requiring intense scrutiny in terms of cross-border financial crime risks and those where less close attention is justified.\n\nTo achieve these outcomes, financial institutions need a clear internal framework and risk assessment methodologies, as well as reliable data sources, on which to base their decisions.\n\n### How the Basel AML Index’s updated classification helps\n\nThe \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fexpert-edition\">Expert Edition\u003C\u002Fa> of the Basel AML Index has long provided an independent, data-driven assessment of money laundering and related financial crime risks across jurisdictions.\n\nPreviously it used three fixed risk bands: low, medium and high. This straightforward approach offers stability and simplicity, but may no longer capture the granularity needed by financial institutions and policymakers, especially where the rating drives due diligence or monitoring processes.\n\nFollowing our annual expert review meeting (see page 12), the Expert Edition will now use \u003Cstrong>Jenks natural breaks\u003C\u002Fstrong>, a statistical method that groups jurisdictions according to natural patterns in the data rather than fixed cut-off points. This results in the following categories:\n\n- \u003Cstrong>Lower risk\u003C\u002Fstrong>: < 4.70\n- \u003Cstrong>Medium ris\u003C\u002Fstrong>k: 4.70–6.08\n- \u003Cstrong>Higher risk\u003C\u002Fstrong>: > 6.08\n\n![](https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F9b974fd1-47e9-49f8-9d2c-9f2ec25bd99c)\n\nThe categories have also been renamed “lower”, “medium” and “higher” to emphasise that risk is relative. This new approach produces a clearer spread across categories and helps users see which jurisdictions fall meaningfully below the global risk pattern.\n\nThe purpose is not to label any jurisdiction as “safe” or “unsafe” but to offer a practical tool that supports geographic risk assessments and the application of proportionate measures. The Index’s underlying data remain available to subscribers. Users can then consider specific indicators relevant to their company’s risk appetite.\n","streamlining-the-risk-based-approach-to-anti-money-laundering-compliance","Streamlining the risk-based approach to anti-money laundering compliance","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fd0c794ab-f975-4521-9333-579c5d947048?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[],[14,17],[17],[182],1364,[],[17],[138],[166],[],"2025-12-05T11:16:34.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fstreamlining-the-risk-based-approach-to-anti-money-laundering-compliance",{"id":192,"body":193,"status":6,"type":10,"date":148,"slug":194,"title":195,"image":196,"countries":197,"topic":21,"activity":21,"tags":198,"nid":21,"topics":199,"activities":202,"authors":204,"images":206,"websites":207,"area":208,"programme":209,"language":62,"translations":210,"translation_of":21,"user_created":140,"date_created":211,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":142,"content":212,"link":213},10590,"This feature appears in the 2025 Basel AML Index Public Edition report. \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fdownloads\">Download the full report and related resources\u003C\u002Fa>.\n\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Ch3>Key takeaways\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Understanding national risks linked to virtual assets is now essential\u003C\u002Fstrong>, as their use has moved from niche to mainstream and is increasingly exploited for financial crime. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Risk assessments are inherently challenging \u003C\u002Fstrong>as (a) virtual assets are borderless by design, (b) large parts of the ecosystem fall outside regulation and (c) reliable national-level data remains limited. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>Illicit activity involving virtual assets does not take place in isolation\u003C\u002Fstrong>: offenders exploit the same weaknesses – corruption, fraud, weak supervision and poor enforcement – that already undermine the wider financial system. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>The Basel AML Index provides valuable indicators to assess both a jurisdiction’s structural vulnerabilities and its capacity to counter threats \u003C\u002Fstrong>related to financial crimes in general, including those related to virtual assets, even though it does not include a dedicated virtual assets risk indicator. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\n\n\u003Cem>Note: in this article we use the term virtual assets in line with the FATF’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Ftopics\u002Fvirtual-assets.html\">definition\u003C\u002Fa> of “any digital representation of value that can be digitally traded, transferred or used for payment”. The terms crypto, cryptoassets, digital assets, digital currencies, etc. form part of this loose family, though they are often defined differently in different contexts – a factor that also complicates risk assessments and data analysis.\u003C\u002Fem>\n\n\u003Ch3>\u003Cstrong>Why assessing risks related to virtual assets matters \u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\nGovernments and private firms alike are under growing pressure to understand the risks associated with virtual assets. What was once a niche is becoming a mainstream part of financial markets and a common feature in all forms of financial crime.\n\nAs the virtual assets industry continues to mature, national authorities that lack a clear understanding of the risks find themselves on the back foot when drafting legislation, supervising market participants or countering financial crime.\n\nFor financial institutions, a clear picture of jurisdiction-level risk is essential for customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, calibrating controls and taking strategic decisions about where or where not to operate. Financial institutions that misjudge these risks leave themselves exposed to illicit finance, reputational harm and potential regulatory action.\n\n\u003Ch3>Why jurisdiction-level risk assessments are difficult\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\n\u003Ch4>1. A borderless system by design\u003C\u002Fh4>\n\nUnlike bank accounts or trust funds, virtual asset wallets or addresses do not have a meaningful jurisdictional location. There is no crypto equivalent of “a bank account in Switzerland”. A wallet can be accessed anywhere and may be controlled by a person or entity whose location is unknown or easily obscured. Large parts of the virtual asset ecosystem also fall outside the boundaries of traditional financial regulation. Self-hosted wallets, peer-to-peer transfers, decentralised finance (DeFi) protocols and informal over-the-counter (OTC) brokers create pockets of activity that are largely invisible. Any jurisdiction-level assessment will inevitably be incomplete.\n\nThe activities of virtual asset service providers (VASPs) further complicate matters. A VASP may be established in one jurisdiction while primarily serving customers in another. In the absence of harmonised legislation or cooperation among supervisors, many operate across numerous markets with minimal physical presence or regulatory engagement.\n\n\u003Ch4>2. Data is limited, patchy and uncertain\u003C\u002Fh4>\n\nReliable quantitative data on financial crime risks related to virtual assets at the national level is scarce. In addition to the issue of contrasting definitions and the technology’s borderless nature, several factors contribute to this lack.\n\nFirst, commercial blockchain analytics providers publish broad indicators of virtual asset adoption and estimates of illicit usage. These can be helpful for spotting trends but require careful interpretation. They rely on estimates and proxies, including web traffic to exchanges or intermediaries, and do not provide precise amounts or reliably distinguish licit from illicit activity.\n\nSecond, it is reasonable to assume that where adoption rises, illicit activity will also increase, simply because criminals use the same infrastructure as legitimate users. However, such relationships cannot be measured with confidence.\n\nThird, at the government level, many jurisdictions still lack a coordinated approach across authorities to collect, share and analyse statistics on money laundering and related financial crimes. In many jurisdictions, data on virtual assets is either not gathered consistently or not collected at all.\n\nWithout reliable data on virtual assets usage and risks, national risk assessments may become detached from real-world threats. The result: regulation and supervision that is either insufficient or unnecessarily burdensome.\n\n### How the Basel AML Index can be used\n\nFor the above reasons, the Basel AML Index does not offer a dedicated indicator for virtual assets. Nevertheless, the Index data is still useful because illicit activity involving virtual assets typically exploits the same underlying weaknesses that enable money laundering, corruption, fraud and other financial crimes in the traditional financial system. Where protections against fraud are weak, for example, where supervision is lacking or where enforcement of regulations is inconsistent or politically compromised, opportunities to misuse virtual assets for illegal purposes tend to expand.\n\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cstrong>Two components of risk \u003C\u002Fstrong>\n\nIn line with the holistic methodology of the Basel AML Index and most AML\u002FCFT risk assessment frameworks, evaluating jurisdiction-level risk related to virtual assets centres on two elements:\n\n\u003Cp>a) \u003Cem>vulnerability \u003C\u002Fem>to the illicit use of virtual assets; and b) \u003Cem>capacity to mitigate \u003C\u002Fem>and respond to these threats. \u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\n\n### Relevant indicators\n\nThe following graphic highlights indicators of the Basel AML Index that are relevant for assessing either \u003Cem>structural vulnerabilities \u003C\u002Fem>that illicit actors may exploit, or a jurisdiction’s \u003Cem>capacity to counter \u003C\u002Fem>threats. These can be viewed individually in the Expert Edition.\n\n![](https:\u002F\u002Fjam.baselgovernance.org\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F7f446525-136f-4018-a322-8a4e8872f23b) *Indicators visible in the Basel AML Index Edition that are particularly relevant to assessing national risks relating to virtual assets.*\n\n\n#### FATF data\n\nUsing the Expert Edition Plus subscription and its quantitative analysis of the latest FATF mutual evaluation and follow-up reports, Basel AML Index users can gain rapid insights into whether a jurisdiction’s AML\u002FCFT framework provides it with the capacity to \u003Cem>counter threats \u003C\u002Fem>related to financial crimes generally, including those involving virtual assets. FATF Recommendations that may be highly relevant for this include:\n\n- R.15 (new technologies)\n- R.16 (payment transparency)\n- R.26 & 27 (regulation and supervision)\n- R.29–31 (law enforcement)\n- R.36–40 (international cooperation)\n\nAn additional useful source of information for jurisdiction-level risk assessments is the FATF’s \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002FFatfrecommendations\u002Ftargeted-update-virtual-assets-vasps-2025.html\">\u003Cem>2025 Targeted Update on Implementation of the FATF Standards on Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers\u003C\u002Fem>\u003C\u002Fa>. This report summarises progress in implementing FATF Recommendation 15 by FATF members and additional jurisdictions with materially important global virtual asset activity. “Materially important” refers to the presence of large VASPs (accounting for more than 0.25 percent of global trading) and\u002For a large virtual asset user base.\n\n### Where to start\n\nFor jurisdictions at an early stage of assessing national risks related to virtual assets, the World Bank’s \u003Cem>\u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fopenknowledge.worldbank.org\u002Fentities\u002Fpublication\u002Fbb5a7475-ac52-4697-afdc-5f618a550623\">AML\u002FCFT National Risk Assessment on Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers: Guidance Manual\u003C\u002Fa> \u003C\u002Fem>(published in October 2025) is a strong starting point. It covers both threats and vulnerabilities, as well as the effectiveness of mitigation measures.\n\nAdditional useful resources include:\n- \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002F9crc-crypto-regulation\">\u003Cstrong>Practical recommendations from regulators and supervisors\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fa>, developed at the 9th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets, on understanding financial crime risks linked to virtual assets and designing effective regulatory and supervisory frameworks.\n- \u003Cstrong>Structured public–private partnerships\u003C\u002Fstrong>, such as the \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fefippp.eu\u002F\">Europol Financial Intelligence Sharing Public Private Partnership\u003C\u002Fa>, which offer opportunities to learn from peers and obtain early insights into emerging threats and financial crime typologies involving virtual assets.\n","assessing-national-risks-related-to-virtual-assets","Assessing national risks related to virtual assets","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F78f8a1ec-bf8d-469a-ab92-228e79ddd8f2?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[],[14,57,200,201,17],"Business Integrity Ethics and Compliance","Corruption Prevention and Public Governance",[17,203],"Research",[205],1365,[],[17],[138,164],[166],[],"2025-12-05T11:43:36.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fassessing-national-risks-related-to-virtual-assets",{"id":215,"body":216,"status":6,"type":103,"date":148,"slug":217,"title":218,"image":219,"countries":220,"topic":21,"activity":21,"tags":221,"nid":222,"topics":223,"activities":224,"authors":226,"images":227,"websites":228,"area":229,"programme":230,"language":62,"translations":231,"translation_of":21,"user_created":232,"date_created":233,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":142,"content":234,"link":235},10591,"**The 14th Public Edition of the [Basel AML Index](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org) shows a world where money laundering risks are levelling out, with improvements in some high-risk countries balanced by declines in traditionally low-risk ones.**\n\nDeveloped and maintained by the Basel Institute on Governance since 2012, the Basel AML Index is an independent, data-based ranking and risk assessment tool for money laundering and related financial crime risks around the world.\n\nAt the heart of the Basel AML Index is a ranking of countries and jurisdictions according to their vulnerability to money laundering and related financial crimes and their capacity to counter these threats. This year, 177 countries are included in the Public Edition. Myanmar, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo receive the highest risk scores, while Finland, Iceland and San Marino have the lowest.\n\n## Key trends\nThis year’s Basel AML Index report highlights current trends and debates around the fight against financial crime, including:\n\n- **The global average Basel AML Index risk score nudged down slightly from 5.30 to 5.28.** The shift is statistically insignificant. However, it gives hope that efforts to curb money laundering are not yet being fully overtaken by emerging threats, such as the use of virtual assets and artificial intelligence for crime.\n- **More than half of jurisdictions improved their scores while 43 percent worsened.** The pattern points to a drift towards the middle, as progress in several higher-risk jurisdictions is offset by slippage among long-standing strong performers.\n- **Results across risk domains are mixed:** modest improvements in the quality of anti-money laundering frameworks and small reductions in corruption overall, but weaker financial transparency, rising concerns over public accountability and wide regional variation in political and legal risks.\n- **Regional trends diverge too.** North America, the EU and Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa all saw higher average risks. Other regions saw slight improvements, most notably Sub-Saharan Africa, with six African countries leaving the Financial Action Task Force grey list and seven among the top ten global improvers.\n\n## Emerging challenges\nThis year’s report includes two deep-dive features examining specific challenges facing anti-financial crime practitioners in both the public and private sectors:\n\n### *Identifying lower-risk jurisdictions*\n\nThough global standards increasingly call for more proportionate use of the risk-based approach to reduce compliance burdens and avoid unintended consequences for financial inclusion, many financial institutions still struggle to assess what constitutes a lower-risk jurisdiction.\n\nThe report explains why this remains difficult and how the Expert Edition of the Basel AML Index now applies a more balanced three-part risk categorisation to help users consider their own risk categories and risk appetite.\n\n### *Assessing risks related to virtual assets*\n\nAs crypto or virtual assets move from niche to mainstream, understanding their risks has become essential. Yet assessment remains difficult because the ecosystem is largely borderless, only partly regulated and supported by limited data.\n\nThe report emphasises that illicit activity involving virtual assets typically exploits the same weaknesses – such as corruption, fraud, weak supervision and poor enforcement – that already undermine the wider financial system. It outlines how users can assess structural vulnerabilities and a jurisdiction’s overall capacity to counter financial crime threats relevant to virtual assets, even without a dedicated virtual assets indicator.\n\n## Shining a light\nElizabeth Andersen, Executive Director of the Basel Institute on Governance, comments:\n\n> Tackling money laundering and related financial crimes – crimes like corruption, fraud, environmental crime and drug trafficking that have drastic impacts on people's lives – begins with understanding the risks. That is what the Basel AML Index is for. More than a simple score, it is a tool to explore the factors that underlie a jurisdiction’s risk profile. We hope it continues to guide policymakers and practitioners as they concentrate attention and resources where they can have the most impact.\n\n## About the Basel AML Index\nThe Basel AML Index is an independent, data-based ranking and risk assessment tool for money laundering and related financial crime risks around the world. It provides risk scores based on data from 17 publicly accessible sources. The risk scores cover five domains relevant to assessing risks of money laundering at the country or jurisdiction level:\n\n - Quality of AML\u002FCFT\u002FCPF framework\n- Corruption and fraud\n- Financial transparency and standards\n- Public transparency and accountability\n- Legal and political risks\n\nThe Basel AML Index is developed and maintained by the Basel Institute on Governance through its International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR). ICAR benefits from core funding from the Governments of Jersey, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and the UK.\n\n\u003Ch3>Learn more\u003C\u002Fh3>\n\n\u003Cul>\n\t\u003Cli>Visit the \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002F\">Basel AML Index website\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fli>\n\t\u003Cli>View the \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.youtube.com\u002Fwatch?v=qUv7DEBYEO0\">launch event on YouTube\u003C\u002Fa> and \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002F2025-12\u002FTranscript%20of%20Basel%20AML%20Index%20launch%202025.pdf\">download the transcript\u003C\u002Fa>\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n","basel-aml-index-2025-reveals-uneven-progress-global-fight-against-financial-crime","Basel AML Index 2025 reveals uneven progress in the global fight against financial crime","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002F675491bf-33d4-4a28-adef-70539426660b?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[],2892,[14,57,17],[17,203,225,53],"Reports",[],[],[17,23],[138],[166],[],"b0662e2a-864d-4888-a1b7-4342b7570b30","2025-12-08T08:35:06.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fbasel-aml-index-2025-reveals-uneven-progress-global-fight-against-financial-crime",{"id":237,"body":238,"status":6,"type":10,"date":239,"slug":240,"title":241,"image":242,"countries":243,"topic":244,"activity":245,"tags":246,"nid":247,"topics":248,"activities":249,"authors":250,"images":251,"websites":252,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":62,"translations":253,"translation_of":21,"user_created":64,"date_created":254,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":97,"content":255,"link":256},10586,"A breakout session at the [9th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002F9crc) gathered regulators, supervisors and experts from more than 20 jurisdictions to discuss practical approaches to regulating and supervising cryptoassets. The central aim was to provide hands-on guidance and tips for jurisdictions at early stages of regulating and supervising cryptoassets.\n\nStructured around three key themes – building blocks for regulation, managing cross-border risks, and sustainable cooperation and peer support – the session captured actionable recommendations and insights from global best practices. A follow-up online meeting served to validate and enhance the draft practical recommendations below.\n\n### 1 Base regulatory frameworks on a clear, in-depth understanding of risks\n\n*   Start with a comprehensive national risk assessment that accounts for domestic and cross-border threats, as well as geopolitical factors. Other factors to take into account include market structure, business models, and prudential, conduct, operational and outsourcing risks. \n*   Prioritise quality over quantity in licensing or registration regimes and oversight models to ensure supervisors have adequate capacity to oversee all licensed\u002Fregistered entities. \n*   Consider providing pre-application consultations and enhanced guidance to parties wishing to be licensed as cryptoasset service providers.\n*   Use regulatory sandboxes to test innovative products and collect insights on emerging risks and technologies.\n\n> Advantages of regulatory sandboxes\n> \n> *   Test products and services in a real environment with real users.\n> *   Conduct supervised testing to identify and prevent potential flaws or regulatory breaches before the product’s final rollout.\n> *   Define new regulatory requirements or amend existing ones based on practical, real-world experience.\n\n_Why this matters:_ _A risk-based approach ensures scarce supervisory resources are deployed where it matters the most, thus supporting risk mitigation. Such an approach helps ensure that frameworks evolve as risks and technologies develop._\n\n### 2 Build strong coordination structures across government and sectors\n\n*   Set up structured working groups across relevant authorities, such as the central bank, tax authority, securities regulator, financial intelligence unit and law enforcement agencies, with the aim of enhancing internal coordination and building a common understanding. These groups can help ensure that policymakers integrate enforcement mechanisms at the policy design stage, for example in a stablecoin policy, the technical capability to freeze or block transactions as a condition for compliance. Within the main regulatory authority (such as the central bank), a formal arrangement such as a structured project framework can also enhance coordination. \n*   Establish and\u002For engage in structured public-private partnerships, such as working groups and task forces combining industry practitioners, legal specialists and academic experts, to enhance information sharing and awareness of market developments. Take care however to respect data privacy and other relevant regulations. \n*   Include wider policy goals like innovation, inclusion and economic resilience in regulatory design. \n\n_Why this matters:_ _Crypto markets cut across multiple policy domains. Whole-of-government coordination reduces gaps, aligns priorities and builds resilience against emerging risks._\n\n### 3 Use phased and proactive supervisory engagement\n\n*   Engage directly with industry actors through workshops, compliance days and joint training. Clearly communicate expectations on governance standards, safeguarding of client assets, outsourcing arrangements and technology risk management during early engagement.\n*   Encourage compliance through education rather than enforcement alone. \n*   Use structured questionnaires, interviews and audit reports to risk-rate firms before deciding on onsite or offsite inspections. \n*   Integrate risk-based supervisory models aligned with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations, applying proportional measures based on business models and risk profiles.\n\n_Why this matters:_ _Early-stage regimes benefit from proactive, educative supervision that builds sector capacity and reduces systemic non-compliance._\n\n### 4 Leverage data, traceability and technology\n\n*   Use blockchain analytics & intelligence, open-source intelligence and financial intelligence unit data to develop a comprehensive risk picture. Surveys of relevant market participants – including during on-site supervision – can contribute to a dashboard of aggregated sector data, such as total transaction volume, number of transactions, number of clients and their associated risk levels, as well as cross-border transaction counts and volumes. Common supervisory data also includes detailed information that enables reconciliation and further investigation, including wallet addresses, transaction amounts and ownership details.\n*   Promote interoperability and standardisation of blockchain analytics & intelligence tools for consistent supervision and risk monitoring. \n*   Ensure existing cooperation channels and recovery mechanisms are suited for cryptoassets and adapt the regulatory framework and practice if needed. \n*   Adopt risk-based due diligence, enhanced cooperation and common supervisory templates, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions.\n\n> Blockchain analytics & intelligence applications for regulators and supervisors\n> \n> *   Early-warning systems to identify suspicious transactions and typologies (sanctions evasion, ransomware, market manipulation…).\n> *   Risk profiling that combines blockchain data with traditional supervisory information.\n> *   Cross-agency data fusion linking financial intelligence units, law enforcement and market regulators.\n> *   RegTech–SupTech integration for automated compliance monitoring.\n> *   Creation of regional and global intelligence nodes for secure data exchange.\n\n_Why this matters:_ _Blockchain analytics & intelligence enables supervisors to move from reactive investigation to proactive oversight. This facilitates earlier detection of cross-border risks and supports convergence with AML, prudential and conduct supervision._\n\n### 5 Build capacity and invest in skills and research\n\n*   Invest in specialist training and staffing. Capacity building is not only about training; it can also be built through structured exchange between colleagues responsible for different aspects of cryptoassets, such as AML\u002FCFT and prudential supervision.\n*   Scale supervisory capacity to market size and complexity. \n*   Extend capacity building to cover tokenised assets and smart-contract-based services.\n*   Engage with academic institutions – for example through research partnerships, joint workshops, internships and secondments – to facilitate structured knowledge sharing, rigorous research and the development of evidence-based methodologies. \n\n_Why this matters:_ _Skilled human capital is critical to interpret complex data and manage the diversity of crypto business models._\n\n### 6 Take early action and make full use of existing legislation\n\n*   Leverage existing legal frameworks (e.g. taxation, banking supervision, reporting obligations) to mitigate risks, in addition to and even prior to developing specific legislation. \n*   Circulate inquiries to all already-regulated financial institutions to assess their interactions with crypto-asset markets and to understand their future plans.\n*   Set supervisory expectations to guide financial institutions’ engagement with cryptoassets and services. It may help to communicate the guiding principle of “same activity, same risk, same regulation”, i.e. crypto activities should be subject to the same regulatory standards and supervisory expectations as traditional financial activities when they present similar risks.\n*   Conduct public awareness campaigns and wide consultations to shape proportionate frameworks before full regulation is enacted. \n\n_Why this matters:_ _Early actions increase transparency, guide market behaviour and reduce risk prior to formal frameworks taking effect._\n\n### 7 Strengthen management of cross-border risks and unregulated providers\n\n*   Integrate guidance from the FATF, Financial Stability Board (FSB) and International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) into national regulatory and supervisory frameworks. \n*   Develop cooperation protocols for inspections and enforcement, including for providers outsourcing critical functions abroad. \n*   Assess risks from regulatory arbitrage and passporting and close enforcement gaps that could be exploited, especially by multi-function crypto intermediaries (MCIs). \n*   Issue official communications to inform consumers about market-related risks that may arise over time, for example, about the dangers of dealing with unregistered cryptoasset service providers.\n\n_Why this matters:_ _Cryptoassets operate globally; common standards and cooperative oversight reduce loopholes and prevent unregulated entities from evading supervision._\n\n### 8 Build structured and formalised peer-learning and cooperation channels\n\n*   Consider establishing or participating in supervisory colleges, taskforces and peer-learning networks for information exchange on cryptoasset regulation and supervision. \n*   Use study visits, secondments and technical peer support to accelerate knowledge transfer. \n*   Create secure forums for supervisors to share typologies and risk mitigation strategies.\n\n> Supervisory colleges for cryptoasset supervision\n> \n> A “crypto supervisory college” brings together home\u002Fhost supervisors of major cryptoasset service providers and issuers to coordinate oversight and conduct joint risk assessments, exchange information securely and prepare for coordination in a crisis. Additional members may include competent authorities for AML\u002FCFT, data protection and cybersecurity, as well as third-country authorities. \n\n_Why this matters:_ _Structured cooperation fosters practical learning, mutual trust and consistent supervisory approaches across jurisdictions._\n\n### 9 Engage international institutions and build shared knowledge infrastructure\n\n*   Collaborate with international and regional centres of expertise such as the World Bank, FATF-style regional bodies, Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) and Basel Institute on Governance for training, research and other resources. \n*   Pool resources for joint studies, typologies and tool development. \n*   Contribute to international standard-setting and interoperability initiatives to enhance the quality of blockchain analytics and supervisory data.\n\n_Why this matters:_ _Global collaboration enhances consistency, strengthens intelligence-led oversight and ensures technology is harnessed responsibly for the public good._\n\n### 10 Recommended resources\n\nEssential texts for jurisdictions seeking to develop and enhance their cryptoasset regulation. Consider establishing a crypto knowledge hub for your authority or working group, where staff and members can contribute relevant articles, research, news and resources.\n\nPractical guidance:\n\n[AML\u002FCFT National Risk Assessment on Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers: Guidance Manual](https:\u002F\u002Fopenknowledge.worldbank.org\u002Fentities\u002Fpublication\u002Fbb5a7475-ac52-4697-afdc-5f618a550623) (updated October 2025) and related [tool](https:\u002F\u002Fdocuments.worldbank.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublication\u002Fdocuments-reports\u002Fdocumentdetail\u002F099710107122245889) – The World Bank. _A practical tool and guidance to help countries assess money laundering and terrorist financing risks linked to virtual asset activities and virtual asset service providers in line with FATF Recommendation 15._\n\n[Best Practices on Travel Rule Supervision](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fcontent\u002Fdam\u002Ffatf-gafi\u002Frecommendations\u002FBest-Practices-Travel-Rule-Supervision.pdf) – Financial Action Task Force (FATF). _A set of good practices to help jurisdictions supervise and implement the FATF Travel Rule to enhance payment transparency and mitigate money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing risks._\n\n[Guidelines on supervisory practices to prevent and detect market abuse under MiCA](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.esma.europa.eu\u002Fdocument\u002Fguidelines-supervisory-practices-prevent-and-detect-market-abuse-under-mica) – European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). _Guidelines to promote consistent and effective supervisory practices under MiCA for preventing and detecting market abuse in cryptoassets, including insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation._\n\nTrends and progress:\n\n[Thematic Review on FSB Global Regulatory Framework for Crypto-asset Activities](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fsb.org\u002F2025\u002F10\u002Fthematic-review-on-fsb-global-regulatory-framework-for-crypto-asset-activities\u002F) – Financial Stability Board (FSB). _A review of global progress and remaining gaps in implementing the FSB’s 2023 regulatory framework for cryptoasset activities and stablecoins, with recommendations to strengthen consistent and resilient regulation._\n\n[Thematic Review Assessing the Implementation of IOSCO Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.iosco.org\u002Flibrary\u002Fpubdocs\u002Fpdf\u002FIOSCOPD801.pdf) – International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). _An assessment of how selected jurisdictions are implementing IOSCO’s 18 policy recommendations for regulating crypto and digital assets to support market integrity and investor protection._\n\n[Targeted Update on Implementation of the FATF Standards on Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fcontent\u002Fdam\u002Ffatf-gafi\u002Frecommendations\u002F2025-Targeted-Upate-VA-VASPs.pdf.coredownload.pdf) – Financial Action Task Force (FATF). _An update on progress and continuing challenges in implementing FATF Recommendation 15 for virtual assets and virtual asset service providers, including insights on emerging risks._\n\n[Advancing in tandem – results of the 2024 BIS Survey on Central Bank Digital Currencies and Crypto](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.bis.org\u002Fpubl\u002Fbppdf\u002Fbispap159.htm) - Bank for International Settlements (BIS). _A summary of the 2024 BIS survey showing how central banks are advancing work on retail and wholesale CBDCs alongside growing regulation of stablecoins, rising use of cryptoassets and increasing interest in tokenisation._","2025-11-25","designing-robust-cryptoasset-frameworks-practical-takeaways-from-international-regulators-and-supervisors-2880","Designing robust cryptoasset frameworks: Practical takeaways from international regulators and supervisors","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fe78a30fa-3c74-4812-b35e-27eaa2f2cc3a?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[14,51],[53],[],2880,[14,57],[53],[],[],[17,23],[],"2025-12-02T11:01:41.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fdesigning-robust-cryptoasset-frameworks-practical-takeaways-from-international-regulators-and-supervisors-2880",{"id":258,"body":259,"status":6,"type":103,"date":260,"slug":261,"title":262,"image":263,"countries":264,"topic":265,"activity":266,"tags":267,"nid":268,"topics":269,"activities":270,"authors":271,"images":272,"websites":21,"area":21,"programme":21,"language":62,"translations":273,"translation_of":21,"user_created":64,"date_created":274,"user_updated":66,"date_updated":8,"content":275,"link":276},10577,"The 14th edition of the [Basel AML Index](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002F) Public Edition – set to be released on 8 December 2025 – will categorise jurisdictions’ financial crime risks using a more nuanced risk-level system.\n\nExperts at this year’s annual review meeting agreed that the change will help Basel AML Index users to better identify lower-risk jurisdictions for money laundering and related financial crimes. The aim is a smarter application of the risk-based approach to anti-money laundering systems, leading to more efficient use of resources and less burdensome application of regulations.\n\n### Mitigating financial crime threats\n\nThe “[risk-based approach](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002FFatfrecommendations\u002FFatfguidanceontherisk-basedapproachtocombatingmoneylaunderingandterroristfinancing-highlevelprinciplesandprocedures.html)” has long been a core element of anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML\u002FCFT) systems.\n\nAs a concept, it makes sense: first gain a thorough understanding of the risks, then apply proportionate mitigation measures.\n\nThe goal is to focus resources and attention on the aspects that pose the highest threat. The concept applies both to private entities subject to AML\u002FCFT reporting requirements, such as financial institutions, and to jurisdictions developing and implementing AML\u002FCFT regulations and supervisory frameworks.\n\n### Poor application = poor results\n\nWhile the risk-based approach is well established, its application in practice still raises questions and triggers valid criticisms and sometimes [unintended consequences](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fen\u002Fpublications\u002FFinancialinclusionandnpoissues\u002FUnintended-consequences-project.html).\n\nPoor implementation or misapplication in the private sector, for example, can lead to over-compliance and a “tick-box” mentality. This increases compliance costs and friction for clients while doing little to improve the effectiveness of mitigation measures.\n\nA superficial assessment of risk may also cause financial institutions to “de-risk” by cutting off certain groups of clients or even entire countries. For example, a humanitarian organisation operating in a higher-risk jurisdiction may struggle to access financial services. In extreme cases, [indiscriminate de-risking](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fpublications\u002Fpb-12) can have even more drastic, long-term unintended consequences for financial systems.\n\nFor supervisory and other public authorities, poor application of a risk-based approach can result in burdensome over-regulation, heavy-handed supervision and misleading guidance. A common criticism is that authorities apply _rule_\\-based rather than _risk_\\-based procedures – blindly following a uniform set of rules for all reporting entities, instead of focusing on what truly matters in preventing or detecting money laundering, terrorist financing or other financial crimes.\n\nIn response to this, recent developments in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations – which set global standards for AML\u002FCFT systems – emphasise the importance of [proportionality](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.fatf-gafi.org\u002Fcontent\u002Fdam\u002Ffatf-gafi\u002Fguidance\u002FGuidance-Financial-Inclusion%20-Anti-Money-Laundering-Terrorist-Financing-Measures.pdf.coredownload.pdf) in applying a risk-based approach. A more nuanced understanding of lower-risk jurisdictions, products or clients is encouraged.\n\n### Basel AML Index risk levels considered at expert review meeting\n\nThe [Basel AML Index](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002F) has long been a leading independent tool for assessing geographical risks of money laundering and related financial crimes. The subscription-based [Expert Edition](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fexpert-edition) allows users to assess risk levels for 203 jurisdictions across 17 indicators. (Subscription is free for most users outside the private sector.)\n\nDue to the tool’s importance in assessing jurisdictions’ risk scores, we hold an annual expert review meeting to consider the [Basel AML Index methodology](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fmethodology) and ensure it remains accurate, transparent and reflective of evolving financial crime risks.\n\nExperts in AML\u002FCFT and risk assessment methodologies from the public and private sectors, international and non-profit organisations, and academia discussed possible refinements to the current risk levels during the two-part review meeting on 15 and 16 September 2025.\n\nUntil now, the Basel AML Index has categorised jurisdictions’ risk levels for Expert Edition subscribers as follows:\n\n*   0–3.3 = low risk\n*   3.4–6.6 = medium risk\n*   6.7–10 = high risk\n\nThis straightforward approach, used not only by the Basel AML Index but also by many other risk-ranking tools, offers stability and simplicity. However, it may no longer capture the granularity needed by financial institutions and policymakers.\n\nCurrently, around 84 percent of jurisdictions fall into the medium-risk category, while only 2.6 percent are considered low risk. Another concern is that these uniform thresholds do not fully reflect the actual distribution of data.\n\n### Alternative approaches\n\nSeveral statistical methods were considered during the annual review meeting to achieve a more data-driven classification:\n\n*   Standard-deviation-based scoring tailors risk bands to the data’s distribution but assumes a roughly normal shape. This is not fully applicable given the Basel AML Index’s slight positive skew (skew = 0.35).\n*   K-means clustering also groups similar values but requires equal variance between clusters. This is an assumption not fully compatible with the Index’s weighted structure.\n*   Jenks natural breaks classification identifies “natural” groupings within the data, minimising internal variance and maximising differences between clusters. This method adapts flexibly to the actual distribution of jurisdiction scores.\n\nGiven the characteristics of the data distribution, it was decided to adopt the Jenks natural breaks classification.\n\nJurisdictions in the Basel AML Index classified according to the current equal distribution of risk levels (left) vs the Jenks natural breaks classification (right).\n\n### What to expect\n\nFrom the next Public Edition release of the Basel AML Index on 8 December 2025, the Jenks natural breaks classification will be used to highlight risk levels within the three-tier system of the Basel AML Index.\n\nTo emphasise that a jurisdiction’s risk is relative to others, experts also agreed to rename the categories “lower” and “higher” instead of “low” and “high”. The final risk-level categories are therefore:\n\n*   Lower risk: Less than 4.70 (65 jurisdictions with current data)\n*   Medium risk: 4.70–6.08 (84 jurisdictions)\n*   Higher risk: More than 6.08 (54 jurisdictions)\n\nThese breaks will remain fixed for the next year. The levels may be reassessed if there are significant changes in data distribution.\n\n### Care needed\n\nThe new risk-level classification provides a more nuanced picture of AML\u002FCFT risks worldwide. However, any categorisation inevitably simplifies complexities, especially for jurisdictions near category thresholds.\n\nThe Basel AML Index applies these risk levels for information purposes only. Detailed data are provided in Excel format for Expert Edition users, who can apply their own categorisations or filter for specific indicators.\n\nWe encourage all users – and anyone involved in assessing financial crime risks – to adopt more nuanced ways to identify lower-risk jurisdictions, clients or products, and to refine their application of the risk-based approach.\n\n### Additional updates: increased coverage\n\nDue to increased availability of FATF data, the next Public Edition of the Basel AML Index will be able to cover more than a dozen additional jurisdictions compared to the 164 included currently. The broader coverage strengthens the Index’s analytical base while maintaining its commitment to data quality and methodological consistency.\n\nIn addition, our [Expert Edition Plus subscription](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Ffeatures-expertplus) – our most comprehensive subscription category, which includes detailed calculative and written analyses of FATF data – will soon cover three further jurisdictions recently assessed by the FATF: Curaçao, Sint Maarten (Kingdom of the Netherlands) and the Holy See (Vatican City).\n\n### Learn more\n\n*   Check out the [Basel AML Index](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002F) and its [Expert Edition and Expert Edition Plus subscriptions](https:\u002F\u002Findex.baselgovernance.org\u002Fexpert-edition). Subscription is free for most users outside the public sector – simply sign up and verify your eligibility to view and download detailed data on risk indicators for 203 jurisdictions.\n*   Sign up for the [2025 Basel AML Index online launch event](https:\u002F\u002Fbaselgovernance.org\u002Fnode\u002F2855) on 9 December.","2025-11-03","identifying-lower-and-higher-risk-jurisdictions-for-money-laundering-basel-aml-index-re-thinks-risk-levels-2860","Identifying lower and higher risk jurisdictions for money laundering: Basel AML Index re-thinks risk levels","https:\u002F\u002Fbg24.baselgovernance.org\u002Fcms\u002Fapi\u002Fassets\u002Fc666fac1-9c17-4430-8a4b-4b72f6954f39?width=1000&height=650&format=webp&quality=80",[],[14,51],[17],[],2860,[14,57,17],[17],[],[],[],"2025-11-03T17:01:40.000Z",[],"\u002Fresources\u002Fnews\u002Fidentifying-lower-and-higher-risk-jurisdictions-for-money-laundering-basel-aml-index-re-thinks-risk-levels-2860",{"left":278,"top":278,"width":279,"height":279,"rotate":278,"vFlip":280,"hFlip":280,"body":281},0,20,false,"\u003Cpath fill=\"currentColor\" fill-rule=\"evenodd\" d=\"M17 10a.75.75 0 0 1-.75.75H5.612l4.158 3.96a.75.75 0 1 1-1.04 1.08l-5.5-5.25a.75.75 0 0 1 0-1.08l5.5-5.25a.75.75 0 1 1 1.04 1.08L5.612 9.25H16.25A.75.75 0 0 1 17 10\" clip-rule=\"evenodd\"\u002F>",1780868831086]