Sanctions and AML Insights

What is credit card fraud and how does it affect your business? Discover common fraud schemes and practical steps for fraud risk management. Protect your revenue.

Learn how to choose the best transaction monitoring software for AML compliance. Improve financial crime prevention and reduce fraud risk. Read more now.

Explore the 3 stages of money laundering: placement, layering, and integration. Learn how financial crime evolves—and how to detect it.

The BIS Entity List is a critical U.S. export control tool targeting foreign entities engaged in activities deemed contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. Businesses must screen all export, re-export, and technology transfer transactions against this list—even those involving intangible items like software or visual inspections. Non-compliance risks are substantial, including hefty fines, criminal charges, and loss of export privileges. Effective compliance requires more than basic screening: firms must implement risk-based programs, classify items accurately, evaluate licensing needs, and maintain robust due diligence processes. As the Entity List changes frequently and can overlap with other sanctions lists, organizations should integrate automated, multi-list screening tools and stay up to date with evolving regulatory guidance to protect their global operations.

FinCEN 314(a) screening is a targeted, event-driven compliance process that requires U.S. financial institutions to search their customer and transaction records for potential matches with individuals or entities suspected of involvement in money laundering or terrorist financing. Unlike ongoing sanctions screening, 314(a) screening is retrospective and confidential, with strict controls over data access and disclosure. Institutions must establish structured internal workflows, use appropriate technology to perform efficient and accurate searches, and ensure timely responses to FinCEN when matches are found. Key challenges include fragmented data, poor recordkeeping, and over-reliance on manual processes, all of which can be mitigated through automation, staff training, and strong governance. A robust 314(a) screening program not only ensures regulatory compliance but also supports broader national security objectives.

The Asia-Pacific region presents a complex and often inconsistent sanctions environment, with 17 countries maintaining autonomous sanctions programs. While Australia and New Zealand lead the region with structured, accessible, and high-integrity lists, most other jurisdictions fall short due to vague designations, poor data formatting, and a lack of public guidance. China and Singapore stand out as high-risk due to opaque practices and limited usability, while Malaysia and Indonesia show technical promise but lack accessibility and clarity. Smaller nations often operate under UN mandates, lacking responsive national frameworks. For compliance professionals, navigating APAC sanctions requires robust screening tools, enhanced due diligence, and region-specific expertise to mitigate risk and ensure regulatory alignment.