Here’s what changed while your firm was busy serving clients: AML compliance evolved from a domestic checkbox exercise into a complex, multi-jurisdictional obligation that most accounting practices are catastrophically under-equipped to handle.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) now sets standards adopted by 200+ jurisdictions. The EU’s 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive introduced criminal liability for compliance officers. The US expanded FinCEN requirements to catch more professional services firms. Asia-Pacific countries implemented increasingly stringent beneficial ownership registries. And enforcement? It went from occasional to relentless across every major market.
Your clients operate globally. Your compliance framework probably doesn’t. This guide bridges that gap, explaining which Anti-Money Laundering regulations actually matter, how different jurisdictions approach enforcement, and what modern accounting firms do to stay ahead of the curve.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- AML compliance evolved from a domestic checkbox exercise into complex multi-jurisdictional obligations
- FATF’s 40 Recommendations set standards across 200+ jurisdictions, but implementation varies dramatically by region
- Accounting firms face direct obligations: CDD, beneficial ownership verification, PEP screening, suspicious activity reporting
- Key trends: real-time screening requirements, AI-powered monitoring, increased personal liability for compliance officers
- Manual processes cannot scale to meet cross-border complexity and regulatory expectations
- Modern firms automate compliance infrastructure to reduce risk, accelerate client onboarding, and maintain a competitive advantage
- Global enforcement intensified: penalties reach hundreds of thousands, criminal liability applies to deliberate facilitation
Why Anti-Money Laundering Regulations Matter for Global Accounting Practices
Global AML fines hit £6.6 billion in 2024, up 42% year on year.
Accounting practices can’t afford to treat anti-money laundering regulations as a domestic concern anymore.
- That property developer client with US investors? You’re potentially subject to FinCEN rules
- The tech startup expanding into Singapore? MAS requirements now apply
- The family office with UAE connections? CBUAE standards matter
- The e-commerce business shipping across ASEAN? Multiple jurisdictions expect compliance simultaneously
Regulators worldwide handed out record penalties in 2024, with several cases specifically targeting inadequate cross-border due diligence. These weren’t rogue firms ignoring obvious red flags. They were established practices that simply hadn’t kept pace with how anti-money laundering regulations now work across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
The reputational cost multiplies the financial damage. When a regulatory authority publishes an enforcement action, prospective clients see it. Referral partners reconsider their relationships. Professional indemnity insurers increase premiums or withdraw cover entirely. Some firms never recover from the reputational damage, regardless of whether they ultimately win appeals or negotiate reduced penalties.
Understanding the Global Anti-Money Laundering Regulations Framework
The Financial Action Task Force sets the baseline through its 40 Recommendations, which 200+ member jurisdictions have committed to implementing. These aren’t suggestions. FATF conducts mutual evaluations and publicly identifies non-compliant countries through its grey and black lists, creating significant economic pressure for compliance.
But here’s where complexity enters. Each jurisdiction interprets these recommendations differently based on local risk assessments, legal systems, and enforcement priorities. Singapore might require daily sanctions screening for crypto transactions, while the EU emphasises beneficial ownership transparency and the US focuses on filing deadlines.
The framework rests on three pillars.
- Prevention through customer due diligence and risk assessments
- Detection through transaction monitoring and suspicious activity reporting
- Prosecution through clear criminal offences and effective enforcement mechanisms
Despite this global framework, practical implementation varies dramatically. Risk profiles differ by jurisdiction. The Cayman Islands faces different money laundering threats than Nigeria. Legal traditions shape the approach. Common law jurisdictions often use principles-based regulation, while civil law countries prefer detailed prescriptive rules. Political priorities determine focus, with some governments prioritising tax evasion while others concentrate on terrorism financing or corruption.
Current stats tell the story. More than 200 jurisdictions are implementing FATF standards, yet 27% still haven’t determined their approach to regulating virtual asset service providers. France recently introduced penalties reaching €100 million for serious violations. The US is expanding requirements, with investment advisors facing a January 2026 deadline to implement full AML programs.
Anti-Money Laundering Regulations: Key Requirements Across Jurisdictions
Despite jurisdictional variations, certain core requirements appear in virtually every anti-money laundering regulations framework. Understanding these universal elements helps firms build compliance programs that scale across borders.
Customer Due Diligence & Enhanced Due Diligence
Every jurisdiction mandates CDD before establishing business relationships. Firms must verify client identity using reliable, independent sources. Passport copies and utility bills remain standard, though increasing numbers of jurisdictions now accept digital verification through government databases or certified electronic identity schemes.
The risk-based approach determines how deep you dig.
- Low-risk clients receive standard CDD
- High-risk situations trigger Enhanced Due Diligence, requiring additional information about the source of wealth, expected transaction patterns, and beneficial ownership structures
Red flags include clients from high-risk jurisdictions, complex ownership arrangements with no clear commercial rationale, or business activities inconsistent with the client’s profile.
Suspicious Activity Reporting
Financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses must report suspicious transactions to their national Financial Intelligence Unit. The definition of “suspicious” varies, but generally covers transactions that appear inconsistent with normal activity, lack an obvious legitimate purpose, or involve known high-risk factors.
Timing requirements differ significantly. Many jurisdictions expect reports within 30 days of detecting suspicious activity. Singapore mandates reporting “as soon as practicable” after forming the suspicion. Canada requires prompt reporting to FINTRAC. Missing these deadlines carries severe penalties, including potential criminal prosecution of compliance officers.
Record Keeping Requirements
Five years represents the global standard for retaining CDD documentation and transaction records, though several jurisdictions extend this to seven years. Records must capture sufficient detail to reconstruct individual transactions and demonstrate compliance with due diligence obligations.
Here’s what must be retained.
- Customer identification documents
- Risk assessments
- Transaction records including amounts, dates, and parties involved
- Internal communications regarding unusual activity
- Suspicious Activity Reports and supporting analysis
The format matters less than accessibility. Paper files work, but electronic systems simplify retrieval during regulatory examinations or law enforcement investigations.
Transaction Monitoring
Ongoing monitoring ensures the customer information remains current and detects unusual transaction patterns. Sophisticated institutions use automated systems with configurable rules and machine learning algorithms. Smaller firms often rely on manual review, though this approach struggles to scale and misses patterns that software catches immediately.
Threshold variations create compliance headaches.
- The US requires Currency Transaction Reports for cash transactions exceeding $10,000
- India mandates identity verification for gaming deposits above ₹2,000
- The EU generally leaves threshold setting to national authorities based on risk assessments
Firms serving international clients must track multiple thresholds simultaneously or risk non-compliance.
Anti-Money Laundering Regulations by Region: What Global Firms Need to Know
Geographic location determines which specific anti-money laundering regulations apply to your practice. Firms with international clients need a working knowledge of requirements in key jurisdictions worldwide.
European Union Anti-Money Laundering Regulations
The EU’s Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive brings significant changes for member states, with full implementation required by December 2025.
- Criminal liability now extends to “enablers” including lawyers, accountants, and compliance officers who facilitate money laundering
- Directors face potential prison terms for corporate non-compliance
The directive also harmonises the predicate offences that constitute money laundering across all member states.
Individual member states implement additional requirements through national legislation. Germany’s BaFin requires real estate agents to perform CDD for transactions at or above €10,000, a threshold that took effect in July 2025. France’s TRACFIN mandates electronic filing of suspicious transaction reports through secure APIs, with penalties reaching €100 million or 10% of turnover for serious breaches.
The UK maintains its Money Laundering Regulations 2017 framework despite Brexit, requiring accounting firms to conduct risk assessments, implement policies and procedures, appoint nominated officers, provide staff training, and maintain records. Recent FCA guidance emphasises proportionate treatment of Politically Exposed Persons, pushing back against blanket policies that discriminate without proper risk assessment.
United States Anti-Money Laundering Regulations
The Bank Secrecy Act creates the foundational AML framework, requiring financial institutions to assist government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded these requirements significantly following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
FinCEN’s Beneficial Ownership Information Rule represents the most significant recent change.
- Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, have 30 days to file beneficial ownership details with FinCEN’s database
- Companies existing before that date face a January 1, 2025, deadline
This requirement applies to foreign companies registered to do business in the US, catching many international firms by surprise.
The Corporate Transparency Act aims to eliminate anonymous shell companies by requiring disclosure of individuals who ultimately own or control reporting companies. Penalties for non-compliance include civil fines up to $500 per day and criminal penalties, including imprisonment up to two years.
From January 1, 2026, investment advisors must implement comprehensive AML programs, including written policies, designated compliance officers, ongoing training, and independent testing. This extends requirements that have long applied to banks and broker-dealers to a much broader segment of the financial services industry.
Asia Pacific Anti-Money Laundering Regulations
Singapore’s Monetary Authority requires rigorous compliance from financial institutions. MAS Notice PSN02 mandates that Digital Payment Token service providers screen all wallet addresses against UN sanctions lists every 24 hours. This goes far beyond traditional name screening, requiring technical integration and automated monitoring systems.
Remote customer onboarding now requires biometric liveness checks under recent HKMA guidance in Hong Kong. Simple photo uploads no longer suffice. The technology must verify that the person presenting identification is physically present during verification, not using photos or videos of another person. Hong Kong also emphasises risk-based approaches to PEPs, with particular focus on properly assessing domestic PEPs and former PEPs rather than applying blanket restrictions.
Australia’s AML/CTF regime extends to designated non-financial businesses and professions under Tranche 2 reforms taking effect in July 2026. Real estate agents, lawyers, accountants, and trust and company service providers will face registration requirements, compliance program obligations, and reporting duties similar to those currently applying to banks. AUSTRAC released comprehensive guidance in September 2024 to help affected businesses prepare.
India’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act sets a ₹2,000 threshold for identity verification on online gaming platforms. This remarkably low threshold reflects concerns about gambling being used for money laundering and reflects a stricter approach than most jurisdictions take to similar activities. The Financial Intelligence Unit monitors compliance closely.
Japan’s framework combines the Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds with oversight from the Financial Services Agency and the Japan Financial Intelligence Center. The country emphasises customer identification procedures and suspicious transaction reporting across financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses.
Middle East & Africa Anti-Money Laundering Regulations
The UAE’s removal from the FATF grey list in 2024 recognises significant improvements to its anti-money laundering regulations framework. The Central Bank of the UAE enforces Federal Decree-Law No. 20 of 2018, which establishes comprehensive AML and counter-terrorist financing requirements for financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses.
Saudi Arabia’s central bank SAMA, implements robust requirements across the financial sector. The Kingdom has criminalised money laundering and terrorist financing through specific legislation and actively cooperates with international law enforcement through its Financial Intelligence Unit.
South Africa’s Financial Intelligence Centre Act requires reporting entities to implement risk management and compliance programs. The country continues to strengthen its framework to address concerns about financial crime and comply with international standards. The Financial Sector Conduct Authority issued updated guidance in 2024 on terrorist financing and targeted financial sanctions.
Kenya operates under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, with the Financial Reporting Center serving as the central agency for receiving, analysing, and disseminating financial information related to money laundering and terrorism financing. Nigerian firms follow the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, enforced by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Americas Beyond the United States
Canada’s FINTRAC administers the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act, with mandatory registration for prepaid card issuers effective October 2025. The draft regulations released in 2024 implement changes from the 2023 Fall Economic Statement and form part of Canada’s AML strategy covering 2023 to 2026. The Department of Finance continues to develop additional regulatory amendments.
Mexico’s Financial Intelligence Unit and the National Banking and Securities Commission enforce the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Illicit Funds. The framework requires comprehensive CDD, ongoing monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting across financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses, including accountants and lawyers.
Brazil’s Council for Financial Activities Control and the Central Bank of Brazil oversee AML compliance under Law No. 9,613/1998, as amended by subsequent legislation. The framework has expanded significantly to cover cryptocurrency exchanges and other emerging financial service providers.
How Anti-Money Laundering Regulations Impact Global Accounting Practices
Accounting practices worldwide face direct AML obligations as designated non-financial businesses and professions. The specific requirements vary by jurisdiction, but the core demands remain consistent:
The consequences escalate rapidly. Financial penalties start at thousands for minor breaches and reach hundreds of thousands for serious failures. Criminal liability applies to deliberate facilitation, carrying potential prison terms.
The Future of Anti-Money Laundering Regulations: 2025 to 2026 Trends
The AML landscape is transforming faster than most firms anticipated. Six major trends will reshape compliance obligations for accounting practices, demanding immediate attention from firms still relying on manual processes.
These trends converge on one reality: manual compliance processes cannot meet emerging regulatory expectations. Firms continuing with spreadsheet tracking, annual reviews, and static screening will find themselves unable to demonstrate adequate systems when regulators assess their frameworks. The technology infrastructure required to handle these obligations represents a necessary investment, not an optional enhancement.
How FigsFlow Helps Global Firms Navigate Anti-Money Laundering Regulations
FigsFlow transforms client onboarding from a multi-day administrative burden into a streamlined digital workflow. Currently serving UK accounting practices with US expansion launching in early 2025, the platform handles everything from proposals through AML verification and payment collection.
Ready to Eliminate Manual AML Compliance?
Additional Resources
- Discover the Best AML Software for Bookkeepers: Best AML Software for Bookkeepers | FigsFlow
- Discover the Best AML Software for Accountants: Best AML Software 2025 | Leading AML Solutions for UK Firms | FigsFlow
- Here’s the Top 6 AML Software for Accoutnants: Best 6 AML Software Every Accountant Needs – #Last Will Surprise You!
- Complete Guide to AML Compliance Tools for Accountants, Bookkeepers & Tax Advisers: Complete Guide to AML Compliance Tools for Accountants, Bookkeepers & Tax Advisors | FigsFlow
- Common ID Verification Mistakes in AML: Common ID Verification Mistakes in AML Compliance | FigsFlow
Conclusion
The anti-money laundering regulatory environment isn’t simplifying. Real-time screening requirements, beneficial ownership transparency initiatives, and personal liability provisions represent the new baseline.
The firms thriving in this environment automated compliance infrastructure before regulators demanded it. They eliminated manual screening, implemented continuous monitoring, and built systems that scale across jurisdictions without proportional increases in compliance staff.
Your practice has a choice. Continue with manual processes and mounting risk exposure, or implement compliance infrastructure that handles the complexity modern regulations demand. The regulatory trajectory is clear, the penalties substantial, and the competitive advantage of proper automation significant.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Anti-money laundering regulations are legal frameworks that prevent criminals from disguising illegally obtained funds as legitimate income. These laws require financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses, including accounting practices, to verify client identities, monitor transactions, and report suspicious activity targeting financial crimes, including drug trafficking, corruption, fraud, tax evasion, and terrorist financing.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an intergovernmental body that sets global standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing through its 40 Recommendations. Over 200 jurisdictions have committed to implementing these standards, though each interprets them differently. For accounting practices, this means compliance obligations extend beyond domestic regulations when serving international clients.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is a US Treasury department that administers economic sanctions programs and maintains lists of prohibited individuals, entities, and countries. While AML regulations focus broadly on preventing money laundering, OFAC handles specific sanctions enforcement. Accounting firms with US clients or connections must screen against OFAC lists as part of their broader AML obligations.
FATF’s updated guidance emphasizes beneficial ownership transparency and enhanced risk assessments. The EU’s Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive introduces criminal liability for compliance officers. The US requires investment advisors to implement comprehensive AML programs from January 2026. Virtual asset service providers face new licensing requirements across major jurisdictions, demanding automated compliance infrastructure.
Placement introduces illicit funds into the financial system through deposits or property purchases. Layering disguises the money’s origin through complex transactions and multiple transfers. Integration returns laundered funds as apparently legitimate wealth through property sales or business profits. AML regulations require firms to identify suspicious patterns across all stages through customer due diligence and transaction monitoring.
Accounting firms are designated non-financial businesses under AML frameworks with direct legal obligations, including registering with supervisory authorities, appointing compliance officers, conducting risk assessments, performing customer due diligence, screening for politically exposed persons, maintaining records for five years, and reporting suspicious activity. Cross-border clients multiply these obligations exponentially across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
