The scale of anti-money laundering compliance failures rarely becomes visible in one sweep. In this case, more than 30 million crypto transactions slipped past surveillance entirely, creating one of the largest documented monitoring gaps in European virtual asset oversight. The weaknesses were not subtle. They touched risk detection design, outsourced vendor oversight, alert backlogs, delayed remediation, governance lapses, disclosure failures, and structural blind spots in transaction monitoring logic.
Virtual asset platforms operate under expectations that suspicious funds, counterparties, and blockchain exposure points can be identified and reported in time to matter. When that fails at scale, the story is not about technology alone, it becomes a regulatory test of systemic responsibility, oversight architecture, and operational consequences.
Table of Contents
Coinbase Europe AML breach and the anatomy of a monitoring collapse
Between April 2021 and March 2025, Coinbase Europe functioned as a regulated virtual asset service provider responsible for monitoring crypto wallet activity, identifying high-risk behavioral patterns, screening against sanctioned or high-risk blockchain actors, and filing timely suspicious transaction disclosures where reasonable indicators existed.
More than 30,442,437 transactions were not monitored under 5 of 21 high-risk detection scenarios. These scenarios were designed to detect exposure to illicit vectors tied to darknet commerce, ransomware operators, theft clusters, malware infrastructure, illicit content distribution, fraud, sanctioned systems, and wallets with cryptocurrency laundering risk typologies. Instead, due to configuration failures predating regulatory onboarding and persisting long after, 31% of all Coinbase Europe transactions within the impacted period processed without full screening coverage.
The unmonitored transaction total represented approximately €176 billion in crypto flows. These were not small retail payments. They were enterprise-scale transfers, cross-border wallet interactions, asset conversions, and exchange settlement movements that should have passed through heightened fraud scanning, rule-based detection, and anomaly qualification. Even seemingly low-risk assets passing through compromised liquidity routes or privacy-linked infrastructure represented unintended compliance opacity.
The monitoring failures originated from configuration issues that prevented the platform’s detection engine from matching inbound and outbound wallet exposure against high-risk blockchain identifiers. These identifiers included repositories of wallets, mix nodes, smart contract interactions, and known financial crime cluster exposures maintained as part of enhanced virtual asset screening rule logic.
Five distinct detection parameters never executed as intended. For more than a year, no one inside the firm identified that the rules were not firing at scale. The error was silently reproducible, structurally consistent, and remained undiscovered by internal assurance routines until a third-party validation exercise surfaced anomalies.
The outages were eventually corrected forward by April 2022, but nothing in the program triggered a retroactive investigation until much later. The absence of monitoring had occurred in production with full transaction volume, and at every point during that period, Coinbase Europe remained responsible for regulatory oversight despite relying on group-level infrastructure for transaction surveillance.
The rescreening backlog that turned months into years
Fixing the issue going forward did not solve the greater problem. Once authorities understood the scope of unmonitored activity, the real challenge began, rebuilding surveillance coverage historically across all unscanned transactions.
The rescreening effort, known internally as a retroactive transaction review, was vast. More than 30 million unmonitored flows were re-processed using corrected detection logic. This reprocessing flagged 255,125 transactions for enhanced review, and 184,790 of those were escalated for deep investigative analysis under high-risk examination protocols.
Investigations did not begin immediately. Months passed before triaging processes started. By the time analysts were fully deployed to review historical alerts, the window for effective intervention had already narrowed. These transactions were no longer attempts in progress, they were events long settled, funds long dispersed, counterparties long re-routed, wallets obfuscated, and liquidity potentially layered across jurisdictions.
The alert review timeline completed in stages:
- 93% of alerts validated by March 2024
- 99% validated by December 2024
- 100% resolved by March 2025
Because of the delays, suspicious activity reporting did not operate with investigative immediacy. In total, 2,708 suspicious transactions were filed, with combined flagged value exceeding €13 million. These disclosures involved activity tied to high-harm categories including ransomware payments, exploitation-linked transaction pathways, illicit marketplace exposure, sanctioned wallet interactions, and cyber intrusion monetization infrastructure.
Across the entire corrective process, the failure was not the discovery of suspicious behavior itself, it was that the detection failed to operate when the activity was live, traceable, disruptive, and actionable.
The review also led to customer exit decisions. Users linked to flagged activity were eventually off-boarded. That response, however, occurred long after behavior that should have triggered exit decisions in near-real-time.
Missed escalation, disclosure delay, and governance blind spots
The monitoring failures were known internally before the regulator was informed, yet governance channels did not act.
- A foundational configuration defect existed since 2020.
- The first signs of failure surfaced in 2021.
- Additional failures were confirmed in 2022.
- A document explicitly describing the monitoring gap was shared internally in early 2023.
- Senior staff discussed exposures months before the regulator was notified.
- Formal disclosure did not occur until November 2023.
Between internal awareness and regulatory notification, nine months passed without escalation despite escalating risk visibility.
During the same period, Coinbase Europe was engaged in active licensing and supervisory dialogue, providing assurances that monitoring backlogs were operational rather than systemic. Transaction screening failure is distinctly different from volume backlog. One reflects capacity strain. The other reflects surveillance non-existence. Both strains generate reporting delays, but only one eliminates surveillance coverage entirely.
Regulators only became aware after the internal analysis was fully underway. That delay in disclosure became a formal aggravating factor.
Regulatory consequences, sanctions, and structural expectations ahead
Under anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism frameworks in Ireland, monitoring failures are not evaluated solely on whether crime ultimately occurred. They are evaluated on whether surveillance existed at all, whether it was fit for purpose, whether controls operated, whether escalation channels worked, and whether suspicious activity could be identified and reported without delay.
Three distinct compliance failures were established:
- Systemic breakdown in transaction surveillance
- Inadequate internal policy and control effectiveness
- Absence of enhanced monitoring where risk thresholds were met
The financial consequences were proportionate to scale, duration, and impact, including a penalty of €30,663,906 reduced to €21,464,734 following settlement terms, plus a formal reprimand.
Beyond penalties, the case resets compliance expectations for virtual asset platforms with outsourced monitoring deployment. Key lessons institutionalized by the findings include:
- A firm cannot outsource regulatory responsibility when outsourcing operational capability
- Data monitoring failures measuring in billions do not qualify as process defects, they qualify as surveillance failure
- Remediation closure is not equal to reporting timeliness, historical correction does not replace real-time prevention
- Crypto monitoring must validate rule performance at a control validation layer, not only at rule design level
- Cloud-based screening infrastructure must produce evidence of execution, not only configuration intent
- Governance must escalate known detection failures faster than remediation plans evolve
The real-world cost of delayed visibility
This case is not an indictment of cryptocurrency as a financial instrument, but rather of compliance architecture gaps that converted lawful exchange infrastructure into an unintended blind corridor for activity that otherwise might have been visible, interceptable, and investigable.
What stands out is not that suspicious activity was later identified, but that it required a forensic reconstruction to become visible, turning anti-money laundering processes into retrospective financial archaeology rather than live crime detection.
The practical message is clear. In regulated crypto markets, transaction monitoring must be provably real-time, auditable by design, and structurally protected from silent failure modes that cannot be detected through ordinary operational observation.
Distributed ledger analysis relies on timing, propagation paths, wallet graph traversal, entity clustering, and disruption opportunities that expire. If detection activates only after value transfer and wallet liquidity dispersion, suspicion recording becomes compliance documentation rather than enforcement intelligence.
Not every compliance incident triggers systemic redesign. This one does.
Related Links
- Central Bank of Ireland AML/CFT Framework
- EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR)
- FIU Ireland Reporting Guidance
- Ireland Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Acts
Other FinCrime Central Articles About Crypto-Related Fines
- Coinbase Leads Charge for Smarter Anti-Money-Laundering Framework
- Jack Dorsey’s Block Inc. Faces $40 Million Fine Over Alleged Crypto Compliance and AML Failures
- Ripple Faces New Challenge as SEC Appeals $125 Million Fine
Source: Central Bank of Ireland (official notice)
Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.
Want to promote your brand, or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.
