Insights

Insights

Mapping Influence – Part II: Canada and the Geopolitics of Kazakh Uranium

3Oct2025

Introduction

This paper is the second in a series analyzing how states deploy economic instruments to expand strategic influence across sensitive regions and sectors. Following our assessment of China’s infrastructure footprint in the Balkans, this paper examines Canada’s engagement with Kazakhstan’s uranium industry, an arena where energy security, dual-use technology and geopolitical rivalry intersect.

Kazakhstan is the world’s leading producer of natural uranium, supplying over 40 percent of global output. Its state-controlled champion, Kazatomprom, anchors joint ventures with both Western and non-Western partners, positioning the country at the center of the global nuclear fuel supply chain. Canada’s Cameco Corporation is among the most prominent Western investors, holding a 40 percent stake in the Inkai joint venture.

Yet, operating in Kazakhstan’s uranium sector entails layered risks: regulatory volatility, legal unpredictability, ownership opacity, and geopolitical exposure. Temporary suspensions of operations, high-profile arbitration disputes, and the transfer of strategic assets to Chinese buyers illustrate the vulnerability of foreign stakeholders. For Canadian actors, the sector represents both a vital diversification pathway away from Russian-controlled supply routes and a field of complex compliance challenges.

Strategic and Regulatory Landscape

Uranium is both a commodity and a strategic asset, central to civilian nuclear energy but also sensitive to non-proliferation concerns. Kazakhstan’s dominance in uranium production grants its structural leverage in global energy and security debates.

The sector is governed by Kazakhstan’s Subsoil and Subsoil Use Code, which mandates state ownership of mineral resources. Foreign investors require government-approved contracts, enforced by the Ministry of Energy and environmental regulators. Enforcement practices are often centralized, occasionally inconsistent, and subject to political discretion.

Joint ventures with Kazatomprom remain the dominant entry point for foreign firms. While Cameco, China General Nuclear (CGN), and formerly Uranium One (Russia) have secured stakes, Kazatomprom retains majority control. Russia’s divestment of certain assets to Chinese buyers marks a shift in influence, raising concerns about long-term market access, supply security, and transparency in ownership structures.

Kazakhstan’s Uranium Sector and Market Dynamics

Kazatomprom: Oversees mining, processing, and exports; majority state-owned despite partial public listing.
Extraction Techniques: ISR (in-situ recovery) methods dominate, offering cost efficiency but raising environmental risks, particularly groundwater contamination.
Regulatory Precedents: The 2025 Inkai suspension due to delayed filings demonstrates regulatory leverage over operational continuity.
Legal Disputes: Kazakhstan’s success in overturning a USD 54.5 million arbitration award against a Canadian junior firm highlights sovereign resilience in dispute resolution.
Geopolitical Realignment: Chinese acquisitions of stakes once held by Russian entities consolidate Beijing’s role in Kazakhstan’s uranium chain, potentially constraining Western access.

Canada’s Position and Strategic Intent

Canada’s uranium engagement reflects a dual imperative: commercial opportunity and geopolitical necessity. Cameco’s longstanding presence in Kazakhstan provides access to low-cost production and positions Canada as a counterweight to Russian and Chinese influence in the nuclear fuel market.

However, the relationship is strained by:

Licensing and regulatory delays.
Legal unpredictability in arbitration outcomes.
Kazakhstan’s growing preference for maintaining sovereign control.
China’s expanded stakeholding at the expense of Russian exits.

Strategically, Canada’s involvement supports Western supply diversification and aligns with NATO and EU interests in reducing dependency on Russia. Yet, Kazakhstan’s balancing strategy means even established partners face constraints.

Compliance and Due Diligence Challenges

Licensing and Contractual Risk

Subsoil contracts are revocable or suspend able by state authorities.
Obligations include local content, environmental safeguards, and technical standards.
Enforcement may be inconsistent, creating operational fragility.
Red Flag: Sudden regulatory suspensions over procedural non-compliance.

Legal Disputes and Enforcement Risk

Kazakhstan has demonstrated ability to resist arbitration enforcement.
Legal remedies for foreign firms may be constrained by sovereign immunity.
Red Flag: Contracts with weak arbitration clauses or reliance on external tribunals.

Ownership and Transparency Risk

Beneficial ownership structures in joint ventures may involve opaque networks.
Transfers of Russian stakes to Chinese buyers occurred with limited disclosure.
Red Flag: Unknown shareholders, politically exposed persons (PEPs), or front companies in JV structures.

Sanctions, Export Controls, and ESG Exposure

Some uranium shipments transit through Russian infrastructure, raising sanctions risks.
Export controls tied to nuclear non-proliferation impose compliance burdens.
ISR techniques carry environmental risks that can trigger ESG scrutiny.
Red Flag: Transactions involving dual-use goods, high-risk jurisdictions, or unverified supply-chain intermediaries.

Risk Mitigation Measures

Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD)

Verification of beneficial ownership, supply-chain intermediaries, and subcontractors.
Ongoing compliance monitoring with a focus on politically exposed entities.

Contractual Structuring

Robust arbitration clauses, ideally referencing neutral jurisdictions.
Contingency planning for operational suspensions or regulatory delays.

Supply Chain Security

Mapping uranium transit routes to identify Russian-linked chokepoints.
Developing redundancy in transport and processing channels outside Russian influence.

Regulatory Engagement

Proactive compliance with Kazakhstan’s subsoil code, environmental obligations, and reporting requirements.
Regular dialogue with Kazakh authorities to anticipate policy shifts.

ESG and Environmental Risk Management

Independent groundwater monitoring for ISR operations.
Transparent reporting aligned with international ESG standards.

Conclusion

Kazakhstan’s uranium industry represents both a strategic opportunity and a compliance challenge for Canada. Access to the world’s leading uranium producer strengthens Canadian and Western efforts to diversify away from Russian-controlled supply chains. Yet, the sector is characterized by regulatory unpredictability, opaque ownership transitions, and the growing influence of Chinese firms.

For compliance officers, investors, and policymakers, the Kazakh uranium sector requires sustained due diligence across licensing, legal, and geopolitical dimensions. The convergence of resource nationalism, great power competition, and ESG scrutiny elevates uranium from a commodity market to a domain of strategic contestation.

In this environment, only those actors that integrate robust compliance systems, supply-chain resilience planning, and proactive regulatory engagement will be positioned to mitigate risks and sustain long-term access. For Canada, the stakes are not only commercial but also geopolitical, shaping its ability to remain a credible player in the global nuclear fuel market.

Insights

Anti-Money Laundering, Financial Crime, and Terrorism Financing Risks in Latin America (Part 2): Financial Channels between the Middle East and Latin America

16Sep2025

This paper examines how financial channels connect actors in the Middle East and Latin America, with particular emphasis on terrorism financing risks. While trade, migration, and cultural exchanges have created legitimate and beneficial ties between these regions, evidence demonstrates that criminal and extremist networks exploit these connections to facilitate illicit financial flows.

Globalization of Terrorism Financing Networks

Over the past several decades, terrorism financing has evolved into a highly decentralized, adaptive system that leverages multiple channels across borders. Networks employ trade manipulation, informal value transfer systems, commodity trafficking, and integration into local criminal economies to sustain operations. Latin America, due to its porous borders, active informal markets, and underregulated financial sectors, has become an important node in these global financial flows.

Presence in Latin America and the Tri-Border Area

The Tri-Border Area (TBA), where Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay converge, has long been identified as a key vulnerability point. Its concentration of cross-border trade, free-trade zones, and weak oversight mechanisms make it an attractive hub for illicit finance. Beyond the TBA, networks have also been linked to major urban centers in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, and smaller communities across the region.

Illicit actors often embed themselves within diaspora or trade communities, blending licit and illicit activities. This allows them to raise funds, launder proceeds, and conduct operations with relative anonymity. Reports indicate overlap between terrorist financing, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, and informal commerce in these regions, further complicating detection and disruption efforts.

Financial Networks and Revenue Sources in the TBA

In Latin America—particularly the TBA—terrorism financing networks and their facilitators employ diverse revenue-generating schemes. Common typologies include:

Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML): Techniques such as over- and under-invoicing, phantom shipments, and the misuse of free-trade zones disguise illicit proceeds as legitimate commerce. Currency exchange houses and informal brokers are often used to repatriate or redirect funds abroad.
Informal Value Transfer Systems (IVTS): Systems like hawala facilitate rapid, trust-based money transfers outside of the regulated financial sector, bypassing anti-money laundering (AML) controls.
Commodity-Based Laundering: Illicit trade in commodities such as narcotics, charcoal, oil, diamonds, and gold provides high-value, fungible assets that can be integrated into global markets with limited transparency.
Bulk Cash Smuggling: Physical transportation of large amounts of currency across borders remains prevalent, often concealed within vehicles, cargo, or personal effects.
Smuggling of Consumer Goods and Document Fraud: Counterfeit or low-tax cigarettes, luxury items, and falsified identification documents enable broader illicit trade and financing networks.
Counterfeit Currency and Digital Assets: Counterfeit U.S. dollars and the increasing use of cryptocurrencies—including over-the-counter (OTC) brokers, peer-to-peer (P2P) exchanges, and mixers—create challenges for monitoring and tracing illicit flows.

Additionally, front companies in sectors such as construction, import/export, and real estate are frequently leveraged to legitimize and integrate illicit funds.

Red Flags and Risk Mitigation

To counter these risks, financial institutions, regulators, and businesses must heighten vigilance and strengthen compliance frameworks. Key red flags include:

Cash-intensive businesses with disproportionate links to high-risk regions.
Import/export firms located in free-trade or border zones with inconsistent or circular trade routes.
Use of third-party payments or complex trade finance structures.
Transactions involving gold, precious metals, used vehicles, or electronics inconsistent with declared business activities.
Increasing reliance on OTC crypto brokers serving jurisdictions with limited oversight.

Risk Mitigation Measures

Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD): Applied to clients, sectors, and jurisdictions identified as high risk. Measures include obtaining verified documentation on ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs), conducting thorough source-of-wealth and source-of-funds checks, applying continuous monitoring of account activity, and implementing risk-scoring models that flag unusual trade patterns or high-value cross-border payments. Special focus should be placed on cash-intensive businesses, free-trade zone operators, and politically exposed persons (PEPs).
Trade Transparency Units (TTUs): Specialized mechanisms to detect trade-based money laundering (TBML) through bilateral and multilateral data sharing. TTUs compare import/export invoices across jurisdictions to detect mispricing, phantom shipments, and circular trading. They rely on advanced data analytics and AI to identify anomalies in commodities such as gold, diamonds, or electronics. TTUs also act as an intelligence bridge between customs authorities, financial intelligence units (FIUs), and commercial banks that provide trade finance.
Licensing & Oversight: Require all money service businesses (MSBs), currency exchange houses, brokers, and informal value transfer system (IVTS) operators to be formally licensed and registered. Regulators should conduct fit-and-proper checks on owners, enforce reporting of suspicious and large transactions, and perform regular compliance audits. Supervisory authorities should also coordinate internationally to monitor cross-border transfers and ensure strict adherence to sanctions, AML, and counter-terrorism financing obligations.
Commodity Transaction Monitoring: Apply heightened scrutiny to the trade of high-value or portable commodities such as gold, diamonds, precious metals, and luxury goods. Dealers and traders should be licensed, maintain full chain-of-custody documentation, and report high-value or unusual transactions. Regulators should require disclosure of origin, counterparty, and transport details for commodity trades, while financial institutions should integrate commodity transaction data into AML monitoring systems to flag over/under-invoicing or routing through high-risk jurisdictions.
Digital Asset Supervision: Enforce strict licensing and registration of virtual asset service providers (VASPs), including exchanges, OTC brokers, and custodial wallet services. Require them to apply robust KYC/AML controls such as identity verification, geolocation checks, and wallet attribution. Regulators should mandate suspicious transaction reporting for unusual crypto activity, apply the FATF “Travel Rule” for cross-border transfers, and deploy blockchain analytics tools to detect use of mixers, privacy coins, and P2P transactions linked to high-risk jurisdictions. Enhanced oversight should be applied to large or rapid transfers inconsistent with customer profiles.

Conclusion

Terrorism financing networks in Latin America demonstrate the ability of illicit actors to rapidly adapt to diverse financial, commercial, and regulatory environments. By exploiting systemic weaknesses—such as limited oversight in free-trade zones, gaps in trade data transparency, underregulated money services, and the anonymity of digital assets—these networks sustain transnational operations that intersect with narcotics trafficking, organized crime, and illicit trade flows. Their integration into both formal and informal economies makes detection and disruption particularly challenging.

Addressing these risks requires a multi-layered strategy. Regulatory enforcement must be strengthened through consistent supervision, licensing regimes, and enhanced cross-border cooperation. Intelligence sharing between domestic and international agencies—particularly financial intelligence units (FIUs), customs authorities, and trade transparency units (TTUs)—is critical to identifying cross-jurisdictional schemes. At the institutional level, financial institutions and businesses must adopt compliance innovations, including advanced analytics, trade-based money laundering detection tools, and blockchain forensics, to stay ahead of evolving methods.

Robust due diligence and risk-based monitoring frameworks remain the cornerstone of prevention. Measures such as identifying beneficial ownership, auditing commodity transactions, and scrutinizing cryptocurrency activity help close vulnerabilities that illicit actors exploit. Ultimately, closing loopholes across trade, financial, and digital asset ecosystems not only constrains the operating space of terrorism financing networks but also strengthens the overall integrity and resilience of the region’s financial systems.

Insights

Private Intelligence: A New Frontier in Sanctions Compliance (Part 3)

22Aug2025

As has been analyzed in the previous parts of this white paper series, in an environment where sanctions are both expanding and becoming more sophisticated, especially in sectors like maritime trade, institutions must transition from reactive controls to proactive intelligence-led risk management. Private intelligence does not serve as a supplementary resource but is central to building a resilient and credible sanctions compliance program.

While the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regime has long operated within a structured and globally harmonized framework, sanctions compliance remains fragmented. Only in 2019 did OFAC formally articulate its expectations for sanctions risk assessments (SRAs), and it is only recently that global regulators have begun to adopt a similar stance. Many institutions still approach sanctions risk through an AML lens, applying legacy tools to a distinct and geopolitically sensitive threat landscape.

It is true that traditional compliance systems are struggling to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated evasion methods. This challenge is especially pronounced in the maritime sector, where obfuscation techniques such as layered ownership structures, secrecy jurisdictions, and document manipulation are widely used to circumvent sanctions regimes. Against this backdrop, enhanced due diligence emerges as a critical tool—not just for compliance, but for strategic risk mitigation.

While initial screening processes reveal elevated risk—whether due to exposure to high-risk jurisdictions, suspicious trade routes, or strange corporate structures— enhanced due diligence provides a more targeted and in-depth analysis. This includes identifying ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs), understanding the source of wealth and key business interests, and uncovering prior associations or red flags. In the maritime domain, these efforts are particularly important given the common use of single-purpose entities, front companies, and nominee shareholders to conceal sanctioned involvement.

Private intelligence capabilities significantly enhance the effectiveness of enhanced due diligence. Access to global corporate registries, vessel ownership databases, litigation records, and local media sources can turn a vague suspicion into a well-substantiated threat assessment—or alternatively, help eliminate false positives. In maritime compliance, where vessels may change ownership or flags frequently and often operate under aliases, such intelligence provides the necessary granularity to identify evasive behavior.

A major challenge for the maritime sector is the operational lag between the imposition of new sanctions and the corresponding updates in official databases. During this window, a recently sanctioned vessel or beneficial owner may still be active in trade, potentially with unwitting counterparties. Private intelligence fills this gap by identifying emerging risks through real-time monitoring of vessel movements, ownership changes, and regional activity.

Also, sanctions risk is no longer limited to primary actors. Regulatory efforts by the U.S., EU, and others are expanding to include those who facilitate restricted trade, such as insurers, port authorities, brokers, and even fuel suppliers. These secondary parties are increasingly being held accountable for indirect exposure to sanctioned activity. For these stakeholders, private intelligence offers a way to map third-party relationships, assess regional vulnerability, and detect involvement in potentially illicit transactions.

Equally important is the effective communication of risk intelligence. Senior leadership and boards must understand exposures and vulnerabilities without needing to interpret technical or operational minutiae. Risk reporting should be concise, strategically framed, and tailored to highlight potential impact and alignment with regulatory expectations. Well-structured intelligence outputs ensure that decision-makers are equipped with the insights they need to balance compliance with commercial objectives.

The reactive nature of traditional compliance—built for known threats and checklist-based assessments—is limited. Activity-based and proliferation-related sanctions, in particular, demand investigative capabilities. A compliance function that merely screens transactions or counterparties post-facto cannot meet today’s regulatory expectations. Instead, institutions must adopt a forward-looking approach grounded in dynamic risk assessment, real-time monitoring, and multidisciplinary expertise.

Conclusion

Enhanced due diligence, when properly executed, becomes more than a compliance requirement – it becomes a strategic decision-support mechanism. It enables organizations to assess exposure with clarity, determine appropriate mitigation strategies, and articulate defensible positions to regulators, stakeholders, and internal governance bodies.

Nowadays, private intelligence should not be seen as an external layer or optional add-on. It is a critical component of modern sanctions compliance—particularly in sectors like maritime shipping, where conventional controls are often inadequate. As regulatory expectations rise and sanctions evasion tactics grow more sophisticated, institutions that adopt intelligence-led approaches will be best positioned to manage risk effectively, protect reputation, and stay ahead of enforcement trends.

Insights

Mapping Influence – Part I: China’s Investments in the Balkans

30Jul2025

Introduction

China’s expanding global investment footprint reflects a shift in how states project influence in the international system. Once primarily a recipient of foreign capital, China has, over the past two decades, become one of the world’s most assertive investors, leveraging foreign direct investment and large-scale infrastructure projects to strengthen diplomatic ties, open markets, and access strategic resources.

The Western Balkans, a region with fragile institutions, unresolved ethnic tensions, and protracted paths toward European Union integration, presents fertile ground for external actors pursuing influence. China has identified this geopolitical vacuum as an opportunity. While the European Union remains the dominant economic partner for most Balkan states, its delayed accession process and bureaucratic conditionality have made Chinese capital an attractive alternative for local governments seeking rapid infrastructure development and politically unconditional funding.

Theoretical Framework

The concepts of economic diplomacy and geoeconomics offer valuable lenses through which to interpret China’s activities in the Balkans. Economic diplomacy refers to the use of economic tools by states to achieve foreign policy goals. This includes trade negotiations, foreign aid, investment strategies, and participation in multilateral economic institutions. Geoeconomics, a related but more strategic concept, emphasizes the deliberate use of economic instruments to produce geopolitical advantages.

China’s foreign policy blends both approaches. Through State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), concessional loans, bilateral agreements, and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing mobilizes its economic assets not just for commercial returns but to reshape global alignments. These investments are not ideologically driven. Rather, they aim to build long-term partnerships, access markets and critical infrastructure, and project soft power, all while maintaining a posture of political non-interference.

Overview of Chinese Investments in the Balkans

Chinese investment in the Western Balkans is dominated by large infrastructure projects, particularly in transportation, energy, and industrial production. Serbia is the most significant recipient of Chinese capital in the region. Projects include the Belgrade-Budapest railway, the Smederevo steel plant acquisition by Hesteel, and the construction of highways and energy facilities. These initiatives have been executed largely by SOEs, such as China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) and PowerChina, often funded through loans from China’s Exim Bank.

In Montenegro, China funded the Bar-Boljare highway project, representing nearly one-fifth of the country’s GDP. The loan terms, currency denomination, and arbitration clauses raised concerns over sovereignty and debt sustainability. In North Macedonia, Chinese companies have been awarded contracts for road construction projects, though some have been accompanied by allegations of corruption and opacity.

Hungary, though an EU member, has also welcomed Chinese investment under the 17+1 framework. The Budapest-Belgrade rail line, co-financed by Chinese and Hungarian institutions, represents China’s strategic interest in connecting Piraeus Port (controlled by COSCO) to Central Europe.

While state actors dominate major projects, some private Chinese companies have engaged in the region, especially in telecommunications and technology. Huawei and ZTE have expanded their presence, raising questions among EU and NATO partners about cybersecurity and strategic infrastructure resilience.

Diplomatic and Political Dimensions

China’s activities in the Balkans align with the broader strategic objectives of the Belt and Road Initiative, launched in 2013. The BRI enables China to establish transport and energy corridors that bypass traditional Western-controlled routes and promote the internationalization of the yuan. The Western Balkans, positioned between Europe and Asia, are pivotal to the so-called Balkan Silk Road.

Politically, China maintains a stance of non-interference in internal affairs, a position that resonates with Balkan governments seeking investment without democratic conditionality. This approach contrasts sharply with the European Union, whose funding and accession talks are tied to complex governance reforms.

China’s strategy often involves bilateral agreements with limited transparency and engagement with local parliaments. This has raised governance concerns, especially regarding procurement processes, environmental standards, and long-term fiscal impacts. The reliance on Chinese loans, particularly those denominated in foreign currencies, has also led to fears of debt traps, as evidenced by Montenegro’s highway case.

Furthermore, China’s use of cultural diplomacy, educational exchange, and media partnerships under the 17+1 platform has bolstered its soft power in the region. Confucius Institutes, student scholarships, and high-level visits have complemented economic engagement with political symbolism.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

China’s growing presence in the Western Balkans represents a deliberate and multifaceted strategy of economic diplomacy. Through a combination of state-led investment, strategic infrastructure projects, and soft power initiatives, Beijing is reshaping the region’s external alignments, often at the expense of Western influence.

For due diligence and intelligence professionals, these dynamics present critical challenges and opportunities. The opacity of Chinese financing mechanisms, the complex ownership structures of SOEs, and the geopolitical sensitivities surrounding strategic assets demand robust investigative capacity and risk assessment frameworks. Enhanced scrutiny of contractual terms, arbitration clauses, and political exposure is essential.

As China continues to blend commerce with statecraft, the role of due diligence expands beyond financial verification into the realm of geopolitical risk analysis. Understanding the full implications of Chinese investment in the Western Balkans is not only an economic necessity but a strategic imperative for institutions engaged in the region.

Insights

Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Financial Crime, and Terrorism Financing in the Middle East: The Role of Banks (Part 1)

11Jul2025

Introduction

Terrorist groups use complex financial networks to fund their activities, particularly in vulnerable countries across the Middle East, where instability and weak regulatory frameworks prevail. This report serves as the introduction to a regional analysis series, examining the challenges the middle east faces in combating Anti-Money Laundering (AML), financial crime, and terrorism financing.

The analysis series shed light on how banking sectors in these fragile environments are exploited by sanctioned groups, using real-world examples to illustrate the heightened risk of illicit financial flows. The report also underscores the critical role of AML measures, international cooperation, and regulatory enforcement in addressing the convergence of financial crime and terrorism financing, where financial institutions often act as both a target and a facilitator, whether knowingly or not.

Terrorism Financing Channels in the Middle East

Terrorism financing may involve illicit or legitimate economic channels. The use of legitimate channels presents significant challenges to financial regulators, especially in jurisdictions where oversight is weak, enforcement is politically constrained, or international coordination is limited. When it comes to legitimate economic channels, sectors such as used car sales, real estate, construction, and import/export businesses may provide a facade of legality while facilitating illicit financial flows.

In addition to these, cash-intensive businesses such as restaurants, convenience stores, casinos, and beauty salons enable large volumes of cash transactions that can obscure illicit proceeds. The trade in precious metals and stones, especially gold and diamonds, offers a portable and difficult-to-trace means of transferring value. Likewise, the luxury goods market, including art, high-end watches, and vehicles, provides discreet methods to store or move wealth.

Emerging technologies have introduced new vulnerabilities. Cryptocurrencies and online payment platforms, prized for their pseudonymity and ease of cross-border transfers, are increasingly exploited. Terrorist designated groups in the Middle East have utilized cryptocurrency mixers, privacy coins, and decentralized exchanges to conceal the origin of funds. Similarly, crowdfunding platforms and online donation systems, often presented as humanitarian initiatives, have sometimes been manipulated to finance extremist causes.

Key financing channels exploited by terrorist organizations include,

State Sponsorship: Direct or indirect financial and logistical support from certain state actors.
Diaspora Networks: Transnational communities, particularly in West Africa, Latin America, and Europe, which funnel funds for extremist groups.
Legitimate Businesses: Investments in sectors such as real estate, construction, and telecommunications that both generate lawful revenue and serve as vehicles for laundering illicit funds.
Charities and NGOs: Organizations that operate as fronts, leveraging donor trust and humanitarian narratives to conceal terrorism financing.
Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML): Manipulation of trade documents, through over- or under-invoicing, to covertly transfer value across borders.
Luxury Goods and High-Value Assets: Use of art, luxury vehicles, watches, gold, and diamonds to discreetly store or transfer wealth.
Cryptocurrencies and Online Platforms: Virtual assets providing anonymity and borderless transferability, with some groups employing privacy coins and mixing services to obscure transactions.
Crowdfunding and Online Donations: Fundraising platforms, often framed as charitable, which may be exploited to finance extremist activities.

International and Regional AML Frameworks and Enforcements

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is the leading global body setting AML/CFT standards, conducting evaluations, and managing compliance, including jurisdictional grey- and black-listing. While national regulators and central banks in the middle east are responsible for enforcement, effectiveness varies. GCC countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made regulatory reforms, enforcing their own sanctions regimes that may differ from U.S. sanctions policies. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq face significant challenges due to political instability and institutional weaknesses, which hinder effective enforcement.

The United States continues to play a leading role globally in combating money laundering and terrorism financing through agencies such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and comprehensive legislation that restricts access to the U.S. financial system. On the international stage, bodies including the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Canada implement coordinated sanctions and regulatory measures. Collectively, these efforts constitute a global framework aimed at isolating illicit actors and disrupting illegal financial networks.

The Banks in the Middle East

Banks in high-risk jurisdictions of the Middle East face a combination of vulnerabilities:

Weak KYC/CDD Protocols: Many financial institutions lack rigorous Know Your Customer and Customer Due Diligence systems.
Political Interference: Government influence and corruption can undermine regulatory independence and supervisory effectiveness.
Banking Secrecy and Fragmentation: Variations in regulatory frameworks and secrecy laws hinder international collaboration and data exchange.

Extremist-linked actors have successfully exploited regional banks through:

The use of front companies and non-governmental organizations as money laundering vehicles.
Complex import/export schemes that mask illicit fund transfers.
Access to correspondent banking relationships, often via domestic banks with weak oversight.

Historical incidents in Lebanon serve as a critical example—where sanctioned entities reportedly laundered funds through local banks prior to the country’s financial collapse in 2019. In 2011, the Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB) was designated under Section 311 of the Patriot Act as a “primary money laundering concern” due to allegations that it facilitated Hezbollah’s laundering of drug trafficking proceeds, leading to its collapse. Similarly, in 2019, the Lebanese “Jammal Trust Bank (JTB)” was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for providing financial services to Hezbollah’s Martyrs Foundation, resulting in its forced liquidation by Lebanese regulators. Today, Lebanon remains a vulnerable country, as the financial crisis has led to a cash-based economy where illicit financing thrives.

Conclusion

The Middle East remains a complex and challenging environment for combating money laundering and terrorism financing. Several countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq continue to grapple with political instability, weak institutional capacity, and fragmented oversight. These conditions create fertile ground for illicit financial flows, with banks often serving as conduits for extremist funding. Addressing these challenges requires a sustained, multifaceted approach combining strengthened AML regimes, enhanced regional cooperation, and advanced technological tools. This report is the first installment in a broader series that will explore detailed case studies and real-world examples from the most vulnerable jurisdictions, shedding light on both the evolving threats and the efforts to disrupt these illicit networks effectively.

Disclaimer: This report is prepared by Global Risk Intelligence for general information purposes only. The information contained herein is based on data believed to be accurate and reliable at the time of publication; however, no warranty, express or implied, is given as to its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Any opinions or forecasts represent the views of Global Risk Intelligence at the time of publication. This report does not constitute investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice; recipients should seek independent advice before making any commercial decisions.