Global security efforts continue to face a persistent threat: the illicit financing of terrorist organizations via ostensibly humanitarian charities. The recent actions by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) mark a significant escalation against these networks, specifically targeting funds flowing to Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). This strategic move demonstrates an evolving approach by regulators to clamp down on entities exploiting charitable fronts to disguise large-scale financial crime and fund terrorist activities.
The threat of terrorist financing is a focal point in the latest National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment (2024), which underlines the vulnerability of the global nonprofit sector. Sham charities are frequently used by terrorist groups to move money across borders, raise funds under the radar, and launder proceeds from both criminal and legitimate donors. By investigating and sanctioning these organizations, regulators not only disrupt immediate financial flows but also raise international awareness around the persistent abuse of humanitarian aid structures.
Table of Contents
Case Overview: OFAC’s Crackdown on Networks Supporting Hamas and the PFLP
On June 10, 2025, OFAC announced sanctions against five individuals and five overseas charitable organizations identified as direct supporters of Hamas’s Military Wing and, in some cases, the PFLP. These entities operated under the cover of humanitarian assistance, but in reality, diverted millions of dollars toward financing terrorism.
The designated organizations span multiple jurisdictions, including Gaza, Türkiye, Algeria, the Netherlands, Italy, and the West Bank. Each was found to be either operated by, controlled by, or providing material support to sanctioned terrorist entities. These actions were executed under the authority of Executive Order 13224, a foundational U.S. counterterrorism statute that allows for the identification and freezing of assets associated with foreign terrorist organizations.
Among those sanctioned, charities such as the Al Weam Charitable Society in Gaza, Filistin Vakfi in Türkiye, El Baraka Association in Algeria, Israa Charitable Foundation Netherlands, and Italy’s La Cupola d’Oro were all cited for operating as conduits for terrorist financing. Some were directly integrated with terrorist wings, employing members of Hamas and PFLP, while others laundered funds using more complex international schemes.
The move was not made in isolation. It followed a series of coordinated actions by the U.S., United Kingdom, and Australia in recent years, highlighting the importance of multilateral collaboration in countering cross-border financial crime. By joining forces, these governments amplified the impact of sanctions, hampering terrorists’ ability to access international banking systems and move money discreetly.
The Mechanics of Sham Charities and Their Impact on AML Compliance
Sham charities function by leveraging the credibility and urgency of humanitarian crises to attract donations from both well-meaning individuals and complicit financiers. Often registered as nonprofit organizations, these entities maintain a façade of legitimacy, collecting donations ostensibly destined for food, shelter, or medical aid in conflict zones. However, these funds are systematically diverted to support militant operations.
AML compliance teams face acute challenges in detecting these schemes. Because sham charities frequently present legitimate paperwork, pass through reputable financial institutions, and sometimes even receive government endorsements, traditional due diligence processes can fall short. The risk is compounded by the complexity of cross-border giving, the prevalence of cash transactions, and the involvement of informal value transfer systems.
Recent cases revealed by OFAC’s investigations show that several named organizations were managed by known terrorist operatives, many of whom disguised their affiliations using shell companies and layered financial transactions. Funds would pass through accounts in multiple countries, often involving false invoices, circular transfers, and front companies to obfuscate the trail.
For financial institutions, this presents heightened risks of sanctions violations and reputational damage. Under OFAC’s regulatory regime, banks and other financial service providers are required to freeze assets, halt transactions, and report any dealings with sanctioned persons or entities. Failure to do so can result in severe civil and criminal penalties, with liability extending to both U.S. and foreign firms engaged in prohibited activity.
Regulatory Framework and Enforcement Actions
The global fight against terrorist financing relies on robust legal and regulatory frameworks. In the United States, Executive Order 13224—first issued in 2001 and subsequently amended—forms the backbone of sanctions against terrorist organizations. This order empowers the U.S. Treasury to designate individuals and entities that provide financial, material, or technological support to designated terrorists. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction are frozen, and U.S. persons are broadly prohibited from conducting transactions with designees.
Additionally, the USA PATRIOT Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and sector-specific guidance such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) alerts provide the legal basis and practical tools for detecting and disrupting terrorist financing. These instruments require financial institutions to establish robust AML programs, conduct enhanced due diligence, and report suspicious activity related to terrorism.
Internationally, frameworks such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations mandate that member countries criminalize the financing of terrorism and implement effective controls on nonprofit organizations to prevent abuse. The FATF’s Recommendation 8 specifically addresses the nonprofit sector, calling for a risk-based approach to oversight and enforcement.
The latest OFAC designations extend these regulatory expectations to a new cohort of organizations, making it clear that any involvement with these charities—even inadvertent—carries significant legal and reputational consequences.
Compliance Lessons for Financial Institutions
For AML and compliance professionals, the events surrounding these new sanctions underscore several critical lessons. First, effective monitoring of nonprofit customers is essential. Financial institutions should treat all cross-border charitable transfers with heightened scrutiny, especially when originating from or destined for high-risk jurisdictions.
Second, ongoing screening against OFAC and international sanctions lists is non-negotiable. Organizations must update their systems regularly to capture new designations and train staff to recognize red flags, such as inconsistencies in donation sources, unusual transaction patterns, and connections to politically exposed persons.
Third, the case reinforces the necessity of robust know-your-customer (KYC) and enhanced due diligence procedures. Institutions should thoroughly vet the beneficial ownership structures of NPOs, monitor for suspicious changes in control or directorship, and assess the legitimacy of stated charitable objectives.
Moreover, technology can be leveraged to improve detection. Advanced analytics, network analysis, and AI-driven transaction monitoring tools can help identify hidden relationships between charities and terrorist groups, trace the flow of funds, and flag suspicious patterns that may otherwise go unnoticed.
Finally, the importance of international collaboration cannot be overstated. The cross-border nature of terrorist financing demands seamless information-sharing between regulators, law enforcement, and the private sector. Partnerships such as the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce (JMLIT) in the UK or FinCEN’s 314(b) program in the U.S. are pivotal in closing intelligence gaps and mounting coordinated enforcement actions.
The Broader Implications: Reducing Terrorist Financing Risk
Beyond the immediate freezing of assets and disruption of fundraising schemes, these sanctions signal to the global financial community that the abuse of humanitarian channels will be met with decisive action. The visibility brought by OFAC’s designations helps deter would-be financiers and undermines the credibility of charities suspected of links to terrorism.
On a policy level, the increased scrutiny of nonprofit organizations prompts both donors and regulators to demand greater transparency. More robust regulatory guidance, routine audits, and transparent governance mechanisms will be essential in protecting the integrity of legitimate humanitarian work.
For financial institutions, the episode is a call to action to double down on sector-specific risk assessments. This includes mapping the end-to-end flow of funds through charitable networks, understanding the regional and political context of donations, and developing clear escalation protocols for suspicious activity.
Continued vigilance is required, as terrorist organizations have demonstrated adaptability in circumventing controls—often pivoting to new jurisdictions, adopting digital currencies, or exploiting emergent crises. The onus is on the AML community to anticipate these shifts and respond with agility.
Conclusion: Charting the Future of AML in the Face of Terrorist Abuse of Charities
The U.S. Treasury’s latest round of sanctions is a high-profile reminder of the ongoing battle against terrorist financing. The use of sham charities by groups such as Hamas and the PFLP represents both a humanitarian betrayal and a complex AML challenge. By freezing assets, designating key actors, and enhancing global cooperation, authorities are not only curbing present threats but also setting a precedent for future enforcement.
Financial institutions, regulators, and donors alike must maintain an unwavering focus on transparency, due diligence, and collaboration. Only through sustained vigilance, technological innovation, and international partnership can the exploitation of the charitable sector be decisively curtailed and the global fight against terrorist financing advanced.
Related Links
- U.S. Treasury – OFAC Sanctions Programs
- Executive Order 13224 (as amended) – U.S. Treasury Resource Center
- FinCEN Guidance – Identifying and Countering Terrorist Financing
- FATF Recommendation 8 – Nonprofit Organizations
- OFAC FAQs on Sanctions and Compliance
Other FinCrime Central Articles About Hamas Funding
- US Crackdown on Hamas Virtual Currency Reveals Turkey’s Role in Terrorism Financing
- Hamas Financing and the U.S. Justice Department’s Latest Seizure Operation
- EU Tightens Sanctions on Hamas and PIJ to Combat Terrorism Financing
- Exposing “Pay-for-Slay”: The Palestinian Authority’s Terrorism Funding Machine
Source: U.S. Treasury
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.
