An exclusive article by Fred Kahn

Cryptoassets have shifted the foundations of financial crime compliance, challenging every principle from customer due diligence to transaction monitoring. As the industry matures, regulatory scrutiny has accelerated, bringing with it a wave of enforcement actions, penalties, and publicized failures. For AML professionals, the risks associated with cryptocurrencies are not only technical but legal, organizational, and often reputational. Understanding how the regulatory and enforcement landscape has changed is now essential for any compliance function that wants to avoid high-profile failures and future-proof its approach.

The increasing volume and sophistication of illicit activity within the crypto ecosystem has made this sector a key battleground for law enforcement and regulators alike. Whether it is the use of privacy coins, cross-chain swaps, decentralized exchanges, or so-called mixers, criminals are constantly probing for weaknesses. At the same time, enforcement agencies have evolved their methods, leveraging blockchain analytics, international intelligence sharing, and targeted regulatory updates to track, disrupt, and prosecute illicit flows. The result is a sector that, while innovative, is also under unprecedented scrutiny from supervisors, FIUs, and cross-border taskforces.

Crypto enforcement actions reshape the risk landscape

Crypto enforcement has become a global phenomenon, with authorities in the US, EU, Asia, and beyond adopting ever more aggressive stances. Unlike the early years of crypto, when regulatory actions were sporadic and limited to warnings, the current era is defined by record fines, asset seizures, and even criminal indictments. Crypto exchanges and service providers face mounting obligations, while new regulations increasingly bring DeFi projects and wallet providers into scope.

The focus keyword, crypto enforcement, is now central to regulatory priorities and risk assessments at all levels. High-profile actions such as the prosecution of Tornado Cash developers, shutdowns of illicit exchanges, and asset freezes involving ransomware proceeds highlight the sector’s exposure to criminal misuse. These cases have created a new deterrent: developers, platform operators, and financial intermediaries are all potentially liable if they facilitate or fail to detect criminal activity.

The rise of blockchain analytics has dramatically improved the ability of authorities to trace illicit funds. Companies specializing in crypto forensics, including Chainalysis and Elliptic, work closely with regulators to monitor transactions and identify typologies. These tools support enforcement efforts across multiple typologies, from darknet market takedowns to sanctions evasion by nation states. The result is an environment where virtually every crypto transaction may be subject to review, especially as major economies implement “travel rule” requirements for virtual asset service providers.

International collaboration is a major driver behind recent crypto enforcement successes. Joint operations between the US Department of Justice, Europol, and agencies in Asia have resulted in the dismantling of major laundering networks operating through unlicensed exchanges and OTC brokers. Many of these cases begin with suspicious transaction reports filed by compliance teams at crypto exchanges, highlighting the growing importance of AML infrastructure and reporting obligations.

A shift is also underway in the scope of enforcement. Rather than focusing solely on platforms, authorities are targeting a broader ecosystem—developers, miners, mixers, custodians, and even users can now fall within enforcement crosshairs if their activities touch illicit funds. The collapse of major platforms in the wake of enforcement actions is reshaping the competitive landscape, with risk-averse players seeking stronger compliance controls and risk assessment frameworks.

Regulatory shifts and the evolution of compliance frameworks

The regulatory environment for cryptoassets has changed dramatically over the past three years, with jurisdictions racing to define the scope of their anti-money laundering obligations. No longer are crypto firms operating in a vacuum; today, most major economies have introduced comprehensive AML and CFT requirements for virtual asset service providers. The focus keyword, crypto enforcement, has driven these reforms, ensuring that regulation keeps pace with innovation while holding bad actors to account.

The European Union has led the way with its Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), a framework that will require crypto exchanges, custodians, and wallet providers to register, conduct robust customer due diligence, and report suspicious transactions. MiCA sets a minimum standard for AML controls, including the requirement to monitor for typologies unique to crypto, such as chain-hopping and mixing services. It also expands the perimeter to include stablecoins and DeFi protocols, meaning a wider array of participants must implement compliance programs on par with those required of traditional financial institutions.

In parallel, the Financial Action Task Force has issued updated guidance to clarify the responsibilities of virtual asset service providers. This includes the “Travel Rule,” which obliges service providers to collect, transmit, and store information about the originators and beneficiaries of crypto transactions above a certain threshold. Enforcement of the Travel Rule is now ramping up globally, with FATF mutual evaluations examining whether jurisdictions are applying these standards in practice, not just on paper.

The United States, historically a leader in crypto enforcement, has continued to adapt its regulatory approach. Crypto businesses are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, which imposes robust KYC, transaction monitoring, and reporting obligations. Recent Department of Justice actions have underscored the risks for firms that fail to implement adequate programs, with several exchanges and mixers facing large penalties, asset seizures, and in some cases, criminal charges against their leadership teams. These developments have made it clear that compliance is not optional, and that even those who provide technical infrastructure—such as software developers for privacy tools—may be held liable if their creations are abused for laundering or sanctions evasion.

Asia Pacific jurisdictions have also moved quickly to close regulatory gaps. Countries such as Singapore and Japan now require licensing, ongoing monitoring, and strong KYC for all crypto exchanges, with authorities conducting on-site inspections and regular audits. Australia’s AUSTRAC, for example, has been particularly proactive, conducting intelligence-led reviews of both registered and unregistered crypto providers, imposing fines, and publishing typology reports to guide industry practices.

A trend is also emerging for preemptive regulation. Several governments now require “fit and proper” testing for senior managers in crypto businesses, detailed risk assessments before launching new products, and enhanced scrutiny of cross-border flows. The result is a compliance environment that is both more complex and more demanding, with firms needing to invest in advanced analytics, integrated case management, and real-time monitoring systems.

As regulatory expectations rise, crypto enforcement actions are now shaped as much by failures in risk management and governance as by explicit legal breaches. Firms that lack a robust risk-based approach, that cannot evidence strong internal controls, or that fail to keep pace with typology evolution face growing exposure not only to regulatory penalties but also to reputational damage and potential loss of market access.

Notable failures and practical lessons for AML professionals

The recent wave of enforcement actions and compliance failures in the crypto sector has exposed persistent weaknesses and recurring themes, offering valuable lessons for AML professionals. One of the most significant failures has been the underestimation of criminal creativity and adaptability. Crypto platforms that relied on legacy controls, or assumed that blockchain transparency alone would deter laundering, found themselves outmatched by actors using advanced obfuscation techniques, including layering through decentralized protocols, chain-hopping, and the use of privacy coins.

Several high-profile cases underscore the risks of weak or incomplete customer due diligence. Some exchanges allowed onboarding with minimal information or failed to conduct periodic reviews, creating opportunities for money mules, shell company networks, and sanctioned actors to operate undetected. As a result, even platforms with sophisticated transaction monitoring faced enforcement for failing to know their customers, illustrating that effective CDD remains the cornerstone of any AML program.

Another common pitfall has been the failure to implement effective sanctions screening. With global attention focused on state actors evading sanctions via crypto, regulators have made this a priority area. Crypto platforms must screen not only against lists of designated individuals and entities but also monitor complex typologies such as proxy wallets, nested services, and cross-chain laundering that can obscure the true source of funds. A reactive approach is no longer sufficient—compliance teams must continuously update their screening tools, integrate external intelligence, and conduct regular risk assessments.

The challenge of monitoring high-velocity, high-volume transaction flows is also acute. Unlike traditional banking, where suspicious activity often stands out, the crypto sector sees rapid, automated transfers across platforms and jurisdictions. Effective AML requires the use of behavioral analytics, network analysis, and machine learning to spot emerging patterns—tools that some firms have yet to fully implement or integrate with their case management systems.

Failures in governance and culture have amplified technical gaps. Where boards and senior management see compliance as a regulatory “tick box” rather than a risk management function, firms are more likely to under-resource their AML teams, ignore red flags, or push back on necessary investments in analytics and reporting. Enforcement actions often cite not only breaches of law but failures in oversight, training, and accountability, making it clear that compliance must be embedded at all levels of the organization.

Regulatory technology vendors have emerged as critical partners in the fight against financial crime in crypto. Platforms that successfully navigated recent enforcement actions typically did so by investing early in advanced analytics, continuous risk assessment, and automated reporting. The most resilient firms treat compliance as a strategic differentiator, using strong controls to attract institutional clients and build trust with regulators.

For AML professionals, these failures reinforce several enduring lessons. First, a risk-based approach is essential—blanket controls or outdated checklists cannot keep pace with criminal innovation. Second, CDD and sanctions screening must be dynamic and integrated across all business lines and product offerings. Third, collaboration with law enforcement, regulators, and other industry actors is crucial for staying ahead of emerging typologies. Finally, culture and governance are as important as technology; without leadership buy-in, even the best systems will fall short.

Conclusion: The future of crypto AML and compliance

Crypto enforcement has evolved from sporadic interventions to a constant, global effort with increasing sophistication on all sides. For AML professionals, the message is clear: compliance programs must not only keep up with new regulations but anticipate emerging risks and typologies. This requires more than regulatory awareness—it demands a commitment to ongoing investment in technology, staff expertise, and the development of adaptive, risk-based frameworks.

Looking ahead, enforcement actions are likely to become even more nuanced and targeted. Regulators and law enforcement agencies are improving their capacity to analyze blockchain data, share intelligence across borders, and trace assets through previously opaque channels. Crypto firms that continue to treat compliance as an afterthought will not only face higher enforcement risk but may also lose access to banking services, key markets, and institutional partners.

At the same time, the industry is moving toward greater maturity. The normalization of compliance practices such as advanced analytics, machine learning, and dynamic sanctions screening means that robust controls are becoming a basic requirement for participation in global markets. This shift offers opportunities for firms that invest early, building trust with regulators and clients through transparency, auditability, and rapid response to evolving typologies.

Ultimately, the future of crypto AML will be defined by adaptability, integration, and collaboration. Firms will need to balance innovation with rigorous oversight, leveraging regulatory technology not only to meet obligations but to outpace criminal innovation. The most successful compliance programs will be those that treat enforcement not as a threat, but as a catalyst for building safer, more resilient business models. For AML professionals, this is both a challenge and an opportunity—to redefine best practices and lead the industry into a new era of financial integrity.

---

Related Links

• FATF Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and VASPs (2023 Update)
• EU Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation – Official Regulation (EU) 2023/1114
• US Department of the Treasury: Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance
• AUSTRAC – Guidance for Digital Currency Exchange Providers
• FinCEN – Advisory on Illicit Activity Involving Convertible Virtual Currency (CVC)

FinCrime Central Articles On This Topic

• GENIUS Act Drives US Stablecoin Crackdown to Combat Money Laundering
• Explosive Tornado Cash Trial Puts Crypto Mixer’s True Purpose Under the Microscope
• How DeFi Forensics Transformed Asset Recovery in Decentralized Finance
• AMLA expects high standards against financial crime in crypto sector
• The ESMA MiCA Rulebook: Professionalism and Protection for Crypto Investors

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 with us 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.