Regulatory Hub

Regulatory change, read operationally.

The standards and jurisdictional changes that shape control design — the FATF Recommendations, current country listings, and what specific reforms actually require of monitoring, screening, governance and reporting. Every entry points to the primary source, so you can check it rather than take it.

Position as at 19 August 2026.

FATF 40 Recommendations Country Listings Malaysia European Union Australia

01 — The standard

The FATF standard, in seven parts.

Almost every national regime is a local translation of this document.

A

Policies and coordination — R.1–2

Risk assessment and the risk-based approach, plus national coordination. R.1 is the Recommendation your enterprise-wide risk assessment has to satisfy, and the one most often cited when a programme's controls are found to be disconnected from the risks it says it faces.

B

Money laundering and confiscation — R.3–4

Criminalisation of money laundering in line with the Vienna and Palermo Conventions, and the provisional measures that allow assets to be frozen, seized and confiscated.

C

Terrorist and proliferation financing — R.5–8

TF criminalisation, targeted financial sanctions for terrorism (R.6) and for proliferation (R.7), and non-profit sector risk (R.8). R.6 was strengthened at the June 2026 plenary to protect humanitarian assistance from the unintended consequences of sanctions implementation.

Updated June 2026
D

Preventive measures — R.9–23

The operational core, and the largest block: customer due diligence (R.10), record-keeping (R.11), PEPs (R.12), correspondent banking (R.13), money value transfer services (R.14), new technologies and virtual assets (R.15), wire transfers (R.16), reliance on third parties (R.17), internal controls and group-wide programmes (R.18), higher-risk countries (R.19), suspicious transaction reporting (R.20–21), and the extension of all of it to DNFBPs (R.22–23).

CDDMonitoringScreeningReporting
E

Beneficial ownership transparency — R.24–25

Transparency of legal persons (R.24) and legal arrangements (R.25). The persistent weak point in mutual evaluations worldwide, and the driver behind registry reform in the EU, the UK and elsewhere.

F

Authorities, supervision and sanctions — R.26–35

Risk-based supervision of financial institutions and DNFBPs, the powers and operational independence of the financial intelligence unit, law enforcement and investigative powers, statistics and guidance, and the requirement that sanctions for non-compliance be effective, proportionate and dissuasive (R.35).

G

International cooperation — R.36–40

Mutual legal assistance, extradition, cross-border freezing and confiscation, and information exchange between supervisors, FIUs and law enforcement.

Technical compliance asks whether the rules exist. Effectiveness asks whether anything happens because of them.
Countries are rated against the 40 Recommendations for the first, and against 11 Immediate Outcomes for the second. Most fail on the second.

02 — Listings

FATF country listings.

Reviewed at each plenary — February, June and October.

Call for action

Three jurisdictions

Unchanged at the June 2026 plenary.

  • Iran
  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  • Myanmar
Increased monitoring

Twenty-two jurisdictions

Two added and two removed on 19 June 2026.

  • Added — Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Added — Iraq
  • Removed — Algeria
  • Removed — Namibia
Also from the plenary

What else moved

The final plenary under the Mexican presidency; the United Kingdom took over on 1 July 2026.

  • R.6 strengthened for humanitarian assistance
  • Consultation opened on R.16 payment transparency
  • Mutual evaluations adopted for Canada and Türkiye
  • Next plenary: October 2026

How to use it

Increased monitoring is a country-risk input. It is not a sanctions list, it is not a reject list, and on its own it does not mandate enhanced due diligence everywhere it touches.

The defensible response is to re-run exposure — customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, source of funds, transaction corridors — decide where risk scoring, review cadence or monitoring coverage genuinely changes, and record the reasoning.

Blanket de-risking of a listed jurisdiction is the response hardest to justify afterwards, and the one FATF has consistently warned against.

FATF — current listings

03 — Jurisdictions

What changed, and what it means.

Tracked selectively. The test is whether a change alters what a compliance function has to do.

Malaysia — in force 1 March 2026

AMLA (Amendment) Act 2025

Proliferation financing enters the Act, including an offence of financing restricted activity. Dealing restrictions now reach any person, inside or outside Malaysia. Supervisors gain administrative monetary penalties, a broadened power to issue directions and standards to reporting institutions and their officers, and the ability to publish enforcement action and its outcome.

  • TFS screening must demonstrably cover PF typologies, not only terrorism lists
  • Obligations reaching individual officers raise the bar on governance evidence — mandate, escalation authority, and proof concerns were escalated
  • Publishable enforcement changes the cost of a finding; remediation timelines and audit trail matter more
  • Supervisory attention is widening toward DNFBPs — legal, accounting, real estate
  • Malaysia sits in regular follow-up after its most recent mutual evaluation; pressure is on effectiveness, not on rewriting rules

Bank Negara Malaysia · APG

European Union — applies 10 July 2027

AMLR, AMLD6 and AMLA

A single rulebook replaces the directive patchwork: Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 applies directly in all Member States from 10 July 2027, with Directive (EU) 2024/1640 transposed by the same date. AMLA has been operational in Frankfurt since 1 July 2025 and had a statutory deadline of 10 July 2026 to deliver its first package of technical standards to the Commission.

  • The binding detail is in the technical standards, not the Level 1 text — plans built only on the Regulation will be re-planned
  • Roughly a year between standards being finalised and becoming binding; that is runway, not waiting time
  • Data lineage, beneficial ownership quality and entity resolution take longer to fix than policies do
  • Divergence between Member States narrows — which also removes local interpretations some programmes quietly rely on
  • Direct AMLA supervision of selected cross-border institutions is expected from 2028

AMLR · AMLD6 · AMLA

Australia — in force 1 July 2026

Tranche 2

The AML/CTF regime extends to designated non-financial businesses and professions for the first time: lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, real estate professionals, trust and company service providers, and dealers in precious metals and stones. AUSTRAC enrolment opened on 31 March 2026, with a 29 July 2026 deadline for businesses providing a designated service from commencement.

  • Scope attaches to the activity, not the job title — mapping designated services is the first task and decides everything downstream
  • Around a hundred thousand businesses with no prior AML infrastructure now need a risk assessment, a programme and CDD before service
  • A compliance officer at management level, Australian resident, meeting a fit-and-proper standard
  • Independent evaluation obligations are staggered; firms treating enrolment as the finish line meet the real test later
  • A useful template for what DNFBP expansion looks like anywhere facing the same recommendation

AUSTRAC

04 — Sources

Go to the primary source.

Secondary commentary — including this page — is a starting point, not a citation.

Standard setters

FATF
Recommendations, listings, evaluations
APG
Asia/Pacific regional body
Egmont Group
Financial intelligence units
Wolfsberg Group
Industry standards
UN Security Council
Consolidated sanctions list

Supervisors and authorities

Bank Negara Malaysia
AMLA competent authority and FIU
Securities Commission Malaysia
Capital markets and digital assets
MAS
Singapore
AUSTRAC
Australia
FCA
United Kingdom
FinCEN
United States
OFAC
US sanctions administration

A note on this page

This is general commentary drawn from public regulatory developments, published guidance and industry research. It is written in a personal capacity, contains no confidential or employer-specific information, and is not legal advice.

Regulatory positions move. Always confirm against the issuing authority before relying on anything here — and if something is out of date or wrong, tell me and I will correct it.