PublicationsThe U4 Blog

U4 Helpdesk Answer

Strengthening anti-money laundering systems in fragile states

Implementing anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) measures in fragile states is a complex and challenging endeavour. Fragile states face potentially heightened exposure to ML/FT risks on account of their typically large informal sectors. In addition, they may struggle to establish effective AML/CFT frameworks to mitigate these risks as a result of limited administrative capacity, competition over resources and political constraints. Evidence suggests that programming intended to strengthen AML/CFT regimes in fragile states must be context sensitive, collaborative, create incentives for local ownership and, not least, take steps to address the underlying drivers of illicit finance.

30 January 2024
Download PDF
Strengthening anti-money laundering systems in fragile states

Main points

  • Tackling sophisticated forms of financial crime relies on considerable state capacity, resourcing and political backing. It is precisely these conditions that are likely to be absent in fragile settings.
  • Implementation of AML/CFT measures in fragile states has traditionally tended to focus on technical compliance over feasible reform objectives and de facto enforcement.
  • Donor-driven approaches typically aim to enhance the institutional, legal and operational frameworks in aid-recipient countries. Typical modalities include technical assistance, capacity building and policy reform efforts.
  • Addressing AML/CFT deficits in fragile states requires an in-depth understanding of institutional needs, political economy challenges and a tailored strategy designed to secure buy-in from in-country actors.
  • The active involvement of private sector entities and collaboration between public and private sectors in the development and implementation of AML/CFT strategies is essential to success.
  • There are long-standing concerns about the unintended consequences of AML/CFT measures, particularly their impact on financial inclusion. Not giving due consideration to these potential unintended consequences may risk incentivising informal economic activities and increase the ML/TF risks.

Cite this publication

Bak, M. (2024) Bergen: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4 Helpdesk Answer 2024:5)

Download PDF
Mathias Bak


All views in this text are the author(s)’, and may differ from the U4 partner agencies’ policies.

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)