Insights

Introduction

North and Central America occupy a central position in global finance, linking the Western Hemisphere with trade, migration, and investment corridors that extend toward the Middle East. These financial and commercial connections support legitimate growth but also create exposure to cross-regional risks such as money laundering, sanctions evasion, and terrorism financing.

The United States and Canada underpin regional stability through advanced regulatory systems and proactive enforcement, while neighboring jurisdictions maintain varying oversight capacities that illicit actors may exploit. As trade and digital innovation accelerate cross-border flows, financial crime increasingly hides within legitimate commerce, remittances, and emerging digital markets.

At the same time, regional authorities are strengthening cooperation through transparency reforms, enhanced due diligence, and data-driven financial intelligence. These measures are critical to protecting the integrity of North and Central America’s financial systems.

 

Financial Convergence and Systemic Exposure

North and Central America occupy a central position in the global financial system. The United States serves as the primary hub for dollar-based transactions and international banking. It plays a leading role in setting global standards for anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism financing, and sanctions enforcement. Canada’s strong banking framework further supports regional stability, while Mexico’s diversified economy, Panama’s role as a re-export and logistics center, and the Northern Triangle’s dependence on remittances illustrate how formal financial institutions and informal markets remain closely connected across the region.

The region’s interconnected financial and trade systems also create avenues for interaction with Middle Eastern counterparts engaged in legitimate commerce, energy investment, and remittance activity. However, these same channels can be misused by networks seeking to conceal the origin of funds or circumvent sanctions.

 

Evolving Patterns of Illicit Financial Activity

In North and Central America, illicit finance operates within a highly connected and well-developed financial system. The main challenge is not weak regulation but uneven enforcement of otherwise strong frameworks across jurisdictions. Criminal and commercial intermediaries exploit legitimate trade, remittance, and investment channels to move funds through the region’s banking and logistics networks, sometimes linking to trading partners or financial facilitators in the Middle East.

Trade manipulation remains the most common laundering method, now more structured and professionalized. Layered corporate ownership, intermediaries, and complex documentation obscure the pricing and movement of goods, including re-exports that may connect through Middle Eastern markets.

Informal value transfer systems also operate alongside formal banking, especially in communities dependent on remittances. Some hybrid networks blend hawala-style practices with licensed money-service businesses and digital wallets, enabling discreet transfers between North America, Central America, and the Middle East.

High-value commodities and real estate continue to offer opportunities for integrating illicit funds. Some beneficial-ownership reporting in the United States and Canada is improving transparency, but several Central American and Caribbean jurisdictions still face challenges with offshore entities and underregulated intermediaries.

The fastest-changing area is the digital space. Crypto-based laundering increasingly involves regional over-the-counter (OTC) brokers who convert virtual assets into cash, gold, or prepaid value, often moving funds through stablecoins or exchanges linked to foreign jurisdictions.

Regulators in the U.S and Canada are expanding blockchain analytics and enforcing FATF-aligned rules, setting standards that smaller jurisdictions are beginning to follow.

 

Financial Networks and Cross-Regional Cooperation

The region’s financial system links formal banking, trade, and informal economies across borders. Financial and commercial flows originating in the Middle East regularly reach North and Central America via established shipping routes, correspondent banking relationships, and exchange networks. When these channels are insufficiently monitored, they can be exploited to move illicit funds, obscure ownership, or evade international sanctions.

To address these risks, U.S. agencies such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) coordinate with regional counterparts through Trade Transparency Units (TTUs) and bilateral intelligence exchanges to detect anomalies such as over- and under-invoicing, phantom shipments, and circular trading. FinCEN’s Geographic Targeting Orders (GTOs) further limit anonymity in high-value, all-cash real-estate transactions by requiring title insurance companies to identify beneficial owners in designated U.S. cities.

Joint initiatives increasingly focus on identifying typologies that connect regional trade and remittance channels with broader money-laundering and terrorism-financing networks. Programs supported by USAID and the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) enhance supervisory capacity, modernize AML frameworks, and promote transparency across remittance-dependent economies.

 

Risk Landscape and Supervisory Response

Exposure in North and Central America arises not from obvious crime, but from the complex and high-volume trade and financial activity that links the region with the rest of the world. Significant trade flows, robust remittance networks, and rapidly expanding digital finance ecosystems require constant oversight to ensure that cross-regional transactions, particularly those linked to high-risk jurisdictions, are properly screened and verified.

Financial institutions are expected to apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) to trade-related transactions, high-risk clients, and virtual-asset service providers. The integration of beneficial ownership registries, commodity-trade data, and suspicious-activity reporting has begun to reduce long-standing blind spots. Increasingly, public–private partnerships (PPPs) facilitate real-time intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement, improving the region’s collective capacity to detect and deter cross-border financial crime.

 

Conclusion

North and Central America’s financial systems reflect both the complexity and adaptability of the global response to illicit finance. Techniques such as trade manipulation, informal transfers, and the use of high-value commodities and digital assets continue to evolve. At the same time, ongoing improvements in transparency, enforcement, and regulatory cooperation are gradually reducing opportunities for misuse. The region’s resilience lies in its capacity to align strong legal frameworks with intelligence-driven collaboration among public authorities, financial institutions, and private-sector actors.

Within this environment, Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) has become not merely a regulatory expectation but an operational necessity. The growing complexity of ownership structures, cross-border investments, and digital financial activity requires independent, specialized verification of beneficial ownership, source of funds, and transactional legitimacy.

Third-party EDD providers play a crucial role in bridging regulatory and operational gaps, supporting banks, investors, and corporates in maintaining compliance and managing reputational and jurisdictional risks across borders.

Ongoing investment in Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD), data integration, and technology will remain essential to maintaining trust and transparency in North and Central America’s financial systems. Strengthening these measures ensures the region can balance openness with security while reducing opportunities for illicit financial activity.

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.

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.