Myanmar, first in the index, faces an FATF deadline in October 2026: if no further progress is made by then, the FATF says it will consider countermeasures. The ranking itself is the Basel AML Index 2025, published on 8 December 2025. The current FATF lists date from 19 June 2026, when three jurisdictions were under a call for action and 22 under increased monitoring. This page is updated after the October plenary.
How are major money laundering countries identified?
Major money laundering countries are identified by scoring how exposed each financial system is to laundering. The Basel AML Index turns four long used warning signs into weighted domains (methodology):
- Weak anti money laundering (AML) rules fall under the AML/CFT/CPF framework domain, half of the score.
- Banking secrecy and poor financial disclosure fall under financial transparency and standards, 17.5 percent, most of it the Tax Justice Network's Financial Secrecy Index.
- Corruption and bribery sit in corruption and fraud risks, 17.5 percent.
- Political instability and a weak rule of law fall under political and legal risks, 10 percent.
A fifth domain, public transparency and accountability, carries the last 5 percent.
The largest single input is the FATF's own verdict. Mutual evaluations, which test a country against the FATF Recommendations for technical compliance and for effectiveness, make up 35 percent of the total score.
The FATF also lists countries by name. In Nepal the two routes meet: it went under increased monitoring in February 2025, and the 2025 index ranks it highest in South Asia, at 5.88.
What is the Basel AML Index, and how is it calculated?
Table 1. Basel AML Index domain weights, 2025 and 2022. Sources: Basel AML Index methodology page (2025 edition, linked above) and the Basel AML Index 2022 report.
| Domain (2025 name) | Weight 2025 | Weight 2022 |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of AML/CFT/CPF framework | 50% | 65% |
| Corruption and fraud risks | 17.5% | 10% (corruption only) |
| Financial transparency and standards | 17.5% | 10% |
| Public transparency and accountability | 5% | 5% |
| Political and legal risks | 10% | 10% |
The Basel AML Index is an independent ranking of money laundering and related financial crime risk by jurisdiction, produced by the Basel Institute on Governance since 2012. The 2025 Public Edition, its 14th, combines 17 indicators from 17 publicly accessible sources into one rating from 0 (low risk) to 10 (high risk) (launch release). Experts set the weights, and an independent expert group reviews indicators and weights every year. Data collection closed on 10 November 2025.
The framework domain has lost 15 points of weight since 2022. Fraud joined corruption in domain 2, and the Financial Secrecy Index, 15 percent of the score, moved from the framework domain into financial transparency. FATF evaluations stayed at 35 percent.
Coverage grew from 128 jurisdictions in 2022, when the global average was 5.25, to 164 in 2024 and 177 in 2025. The 2025 average of 5.28, against 5.30 a year earlier, is a change Basel calls statistically insignificant (key findings).
Some countries are left out of the Public Edition on purpose. A jurisdiction needs at least a fourth round FATF evaluation and data for 65 percent of the indicators. Russia is out because the FATF suspended its membership. Iran, North Korea, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands have no 2025 score either. The Expert Edition covers 203 jurisdictions, is updated every quarter and sorts scores into three bands: lower risk under 4.70, medium 4.70 to 6.08, higher above 6.08.
Which countries top the 2025 money laundering risk scores and ranking?
Six of the ten highest scores in the Basel AML Index 2025 belong to Sub-Saharan Africa. Myanmar, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo lead, followed by Chad, then Equatorial Guinea and Venezuela, which share 7.55. Basel lists Equatorial Guinea fifth.
The 10 countries with the highest money laundering risk
Table 2. The 10 highest risk jurisdictions, Basel AML Index 2025. Scores from the Basel AML Index 2025 ranking (8 December 2025) and the 2024 report; FATF status from the statements of 19 June 2026, updated after the FATF plenary of October 2026; notes from the FATF, the Organized Crime Index 2025 and the US Department of Justice.
| Rank | Jurisdiction | 2025 | 2024 | FATF, 19 June 2026 | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Myanmar | 8.18 | 8.17 | Call for action, enhanced due diligence (since October 2022) | Organized Crime Index criminality first of 193 |
| 2 | Haiti | 8.12 | 7.92 | Grey list since June 2021 | FATF: "all deadlines have expired and work remains" |
| 3 | Democratic Republic of the Congo | 7.63 | 7.73 | Grey list since October 2022 | FATF, June 2026: action plan substantially completed, on site visit next |
| 4 | Chad | 7.56 | 7.60 | Not listed | Organized Crime Index criminality 6.00 out of 10 |
| 5 | Equatorial Guinea | 7.55 | not covered | Not listed | First year in the Public Edition; DOJ forfeiture settlement, 2014 |
| 6 | Venezuela | 7.55 | 7.59 | Grey list since June 2024 | FATF concern over its November 2024 NPO law; Saab plea, 2026 |
| 7 | Lao PDR | 7.50 | 7.53 | Grey list since February 2025 | Action plan: supervision of casinos and special economic zones |
| 8 | Gabon | 7.46 | 7.48 | Not listed | Organized Crime Index financial crimes 6.5 out of 10 |
| 9 | Central African Republic | 7.44 | 7.49 | Not listed | Organized Crime Index criminality 7.03, 16th of 193 |
| 10 | Guinea-Bissau | 7.30 | 7.28 | Not listed | Organized Crime Index financial crimes 6.0 out of 10 |
Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo moved in opposite directions: Haiti rose from 7.92 to 8.12 with every FATF deadline expired, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo fell from 7.73 to 7.63. In June 2026 the FATF found the DRC's action plan substantially completed, the step before an on site visit. Four of the ten (Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and the Central African Republic) are on no FATF list.
Which countries rank 11 to 20?
The Republic of the Congo (7.27) and China (7.26) open the second ten, followed by Djibouti (6.93), Niger (6.84), Algeria (6.82), Madagascar (6.77), Turkmenistan (6.73), Cambodia (6.72), Vietnam (6.69) and the Comoros (6.67). Vietnam is still on the grey list, and the FATF says all its deadlines expired in May 2025.
The 10 countries with the lowest money laundering risk
Finland has the lowest score, 3.03, down from 3.07 in 2024, followed by Iceland and San Marino, which was lowest in 2024. Nine of the ten are European; New Zealand is the exception.
Table 3. The 10 lowest risk jurisdictions, Basel AML Index 2025. Sources: the Basel ranking for 2025 scores and the 2024 report for the year before.
| Rank | Jurisdiction | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 168 | New Zealand | 3.76 | 3.68 |
| 169 | Norway | 3.73 | 3.76 |
| 170 | Slovenia | 3.49 | 3.54 |
| 171 | Andorra | 3.48 | 3.29 |
| 172 | Sweden | 3.48 | 3.45 |
| 173 | Estonia | 3.25 | 3.16 |
| 174 | Denmark | 3.18 | 3.50 |
| 175 | San Marino | 3.08 | 2.96 |
| 176 | Iceland | 3.04 | 3.00 |
| 177 | Finland | 3.03 | 3.07 |
Is Mexico, Cyprus or Hong Kong high risk?
None of the three is in the top 20: Mexico scores 5.52 (rank 71), Hong Kong 5.37 (rank 82) and Cyprus 4.77 (rank 117), and none of the financial centers in Table 4 is on an FATF list as of 19 June 2026.
Table 4. Selected financial centers, Basel AML Index 2025. Source: the Basel AML Index 2025 ranking, with ranks out of 177 jurisdictions.
| Rank | Jurisdiction | 2025 score |
|---|---|---|
| 40 | United Arab Emirates | 6.11 |
| 51 | Panama | 5.83 |
| 62 | Türkiye | 5.65 |
| 66 | Malaysia | 5.60 |
| 71 | Mexico | 5.52 |
| 82 | Hong Kong | 5.37 |
| 89 | Kazakhstan | 5.18 |
| 95 | Malta | 5.15 |
| 103 | Germany | 4.97 |
| 113 | United States | 4.83 |
| 117 | Cyprus | 4.77 |
| 122 | Singapore | 4.73 |
| 133 | Switzerland | 4.47 |
| 157 | United Kingdom | 4.04 |
Kazakhstan worsened more than any other jurisdiction in 2025, and Germany is also among the ten largest decliners. The United Arab Emirates, at 6.11, sits just above 6.08, where the Expert Edition's higher risk band begins.
The United States (113th) and the United Kingdom (157th) sit in the lower half of the table, yet a low score does not lighten a firm's duties in either.
Regional focus: where is money laundering risk highest?
Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest average of the eight regions, 6.14, and Basel says it stands out for progress: 70 percent of its jurisdictions improved in 2025, and six left the FATF grey list. Basel describes the global pattern as a slow drift toward the middle, with higher risk countries improving while long strong performers slip. North America, the EU and Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa all got worse on average.
Table 5. Money laundering risk by region, Basel AML Index 2025 and 2022. 2025 averages are the means of each region's scores in the Basel AML Index 2025 report and match its regional panels (pp. 30 to 45), which also name the weakest areas. 2022 averages are as printed in the 2022 report, which scored 128 jurisdictions under the older weights; Basel says its yearly method review may affect comparability over time.
| Region | Jurisdictions | 2025 average | 2022 average | Weakest area, 2025 | Highest three, 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-Saharan Africa | 43 | 6.14 | 6.58 | AML/CFT/CPF framework | DR Congo, Chad, Equatorial Guinea |
| South Asia | 6 | 5.57 | 6.02 | Financial transparency | Nepal, India, Pakistan |
| Middle East and North Africa | 15 | 5.49 | 4.93 | Financial transparency | Djibouti, Algeria, Kuwait |
| East Asia and Pacific | 27 | 5.45 | 5.48 | Financial transparency; exposure to fraud | Myanmar, Lao PDR, China |
| Eastern Europe and Central Asia | 17 | 5.20 | 5.15 | Political and legal risks; corruption | Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan |
| Latin America and the Caribbean | 33 | 5.18 | 5.34 | AML/CFT/CPF framework | Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua |
| North America | 2 | 4.72 | 4.23 | Financial transparency | United States, Canada |
| EU and Western Europe | 34 | 4.11 | 3.97 | Financial transparency | Hungary, Malta, Bulgaria |
Sub-Saharan Africa
Burkina Faso, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania left the grey list in 2025. Seven of the ten global improvers are African, led by Liberia and Mozambique, and Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire moved from higher to medium risk.
South Asia
Nepal (5.88), India (5.66) and Pakistan (5.63) lead a region whose profile stayed broadly stable. None of its six jurisdictions falls in the lower risk band.
Middle East and North Africa
Two newcomers to the index, Djibouti (6.93) and Iraq, pushed the regional average up, and Algeria (6.82) and Kuwait (6.13) complete the top three. Financial transparency is still the weakest area, though its score improved.
East Asia and Pacific
Three of the top 12 places worldwide are here: Myanmar, Lao PDR and China. New Zealand is lowest, at 3.76. The average fell slightly as frameworks and corruption scores improved, while public transparency risk rose.
Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Turkmenistan (6.73), Tajikistan (6.44) and Kyrgyzstan (5.96) lead. Political and legal risks stay the weakest area, but financial transparency worsened most this year, which Basel reads as weaker financial disclosure and beneficial ownership transparency.
Latin America and the Caribbean
Haiti ranks second worldwide and Venezuela sixth. Nicaragua (6.61), third in the region, is among the ten largest decliners, and Bolivia and the British Virgin Islands joined the grey list in June 2025.
North America
Both scores worsened, the United States to 4.83 and Canada to 4.61, which still leaves Canada in the lower risk band. Financial transparency drove the rise. On the regional panel it reaches 9.38 out of 10. Basel expects the FATF evaluations of Canada (November 2025) and the United States (February 2026) to move both scores.
European Union and Western Europe
Hungary (5.16), Malta (5.15) and Bulgaria (5.00) score highest in the lowest risk region. About 80 percent of its jurisdictions fall in the lower risk band, yet roughly 40 percent scored worse than in 2024, and Bulgaria and Monaco remain on the grey list.
What is the difference between high risk, listed and sanctioned countries?
A country can be high risk, listed or sanctioned, and each label comes from a different source. Searches add a fourth question, volume.
Risk is what the Basel AML Index scores, and Basel is plain about the limit: "The Index does not attempt to measure the actual amount of money laundering activity."
Listing is the FATF's decision. The FATF names jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their regimes against money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing, and those that commit to fixing them within agreed timeframes go under increased monitoring, the grey list. On 19 June 2026, 22 jurisdictions were under increased monitoring, and for them the FATF "does not call for" enhanced due diligence. Three were subject to a call for action: countermeasures on North Korea and Iran, and enhanced due diligence "and not countermeasures" on Myanmar.
Sanctions are set by governments and the UN. They apply name by name, through screening.
Volume, what "most black money" searches ask about, is the one question none of these sources answers country by country. UNODC puts laundering at 2 to 5 percent of global GDP a year, $800 billion to $2 trillion, worldwide. Its 2011 study estimated about $1.6 trillion laundered in 2009, 2.7 percent of global GDP, and found less than 1 percent of illicit financial flows being seized and frozen.
The Organized Crime Index 2025 of the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime rates financial crime markets instead (Organized Crime Index). Its highest financial crimes score, 9 out of 10, goes to the UAE, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Libya. Mexico and Myanmar get 8.5, and the United States 8, against 4.83 on Basel.
The FATF lists and the index overlap without matching. Myanmar tops the index and is under a call for action, and the FATF says fraud and cyber scam activities there "remain extensive". China ranks 12th on Basel and is on neither list, while Iran is under a call for action but has no Basel score.
Court records work at the level of the person. In September 2026 Alex Saab, a former Venezuelan minister, admitted that he used "shell companies outside of Venezuela to launder proceeds" (DOJ). Shell companies abroad are among the money laundering methods and typologies found in famous money laundering cases.
How should a compliance team use these rankings?
Picture a bank that gives geography 25 of the 100 points in its customer risk score and turns the Basel public score straight into points: the score divided by 10, times 25. The numbers are illustrative.
A company incorporated in Panama (5.83) earns 14.6 points. Its beneficial owner lives in Lao PDR (7.50), so the bank scores the riskier link: 18.75 points.
Two errors are easy here. Adding the Corruption Perceptions Index on top counts corruption twice, because Basel already carries it at 5 percent. Adding points for FATF evaluations double counts too, since they are 35 percent of the Basel score. Whether Lao PDR's grey listing also triggers enhanced due diligence is for the firm's policy and local law to settle; the FATF itself does not call for it. Sanctions and PEP checks run on the names, outside the country score.
Basel itself warns against this kind of shortcut. Its 2025 report says the score is not meant to be pasted straight into a risk assessment, adds "we strongly advise against a superficial comparison of countries in accordance with their overall score and ranking", and recommends the Expert Edition for compliance work (pp. 3 and 15).
In complead's customer risk assessment, each rating comes back with every factor, its weight and its source, and a change to the geography weight shows how many customers would move tier before it is published as a new model version. Table 6 sets out the cycle around that change.
Table 6. Using country rankings in a customer risk model. The stages are illustrative, and who decides at each follows the firm's own governance.
| Stage | Input | Output | Who decides |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choose sources | Basel Expert or Public Edition, FATF statements, sanctions programs | A source list with refresh dates | MLRO |
| Map to one geography score | Each source, counted once | One score per jurisdiction | Compliance analyst; MLRO approves |
| Apply to customers and counterparties | Residence, incorporation, owners, payment corridors | A geography factor per customer | The model, under approved weights |
| Run again after each FATF plenary and each new Basel edition | New FATF statements, new Basel scores | Customers whose band changed | Compliance analyst |
| Sign off | The change simulated on the live portfolio | A new model version | Reviewer, named in the record |
What can be done to improve AML supervision?
Supervision gaps appear country by country in the FATF's June 2026 action plans, and Basel's method shows what closing them is worth on paper.
- Strengthen regulatory frameworks. The FATF asks Venezuela to bring the full range of financial institutions and designated non financial businesses under AML measures and risk based supervision.
- Build the capacity of supervisors. The reforms that brought the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the end of its action plan included adequately resourcing its financial intelligence unit.
- Adopt a risk based approach. Lao PDR is asked to improve risk based supervision of casinos, banks and reporting entities in special economic zones.
- Foster collaboration and information sharing. Myanmar's progress this cycle included investigating transnational money laundering cases with international cooperation.
- Monitor and evaluate supervision regularly. Basel assumes that a jurisdiction leaving the grey list has reached at least moderate effectiveness: a Caribbean jurisdiction rated 0 on six of the FATF's 11 effectiveness criteria before listing is scored 1 on those six after it leaves.
- Engage the private sector. Vietnam's action plan includes outreach to the private sector, and Venezuela's asks for adequate, accurate and current beneficial ownership information, accessible in a timely manner, which is the record firms check in beneficial ownership verification.
- Supervise new technology. Basel's 2025 report finds that crime involving virtual assets exploits the same weaknesses as the wider system: corruption, fraud, weak supervision and poor enforcement. For crypto transfers, the sender's and recipient's details have to travel with the payment under the Travel Rule (FATF Recommendations 15 and 16).
What changed in 2026?
Two FATF plenaries and one EU update changed the lists this year; the Basel scores did not.
- February. The FATF plenary of 11 to 13 February added Kuwait, third in its region on Basel at 6.13, and Papua New Guinea to increased monitoring, and removed no one (DIA, 17 February 2026).
- June. The plenary of 17 to 19 June added Iraq and Bosnia and Herzegovina and removed Algeria and Namibia (US Treasury, 30 June 2026). The call for action list did not change (DIA, 24 June 2026).
- EU. Delegated Regulations (EU) 2026/46 and 2026/83, published on 9 January 2026, added Russia, Bolivia and the British Virgin Islands to the EU list of high risk third countries from 29 January 2026, which now names 26 (European Commission).
- Basel. The edition of 8 December 2025 is still the current one; Basel has given no date for a 2026 edition.
How this ranking was built
Every score and rank on this page comes from one dataset: the Basel AML Index 2025 Public Edition, published by the Basel Institute on Governance on 8 December 2025. It covers 177 jurisdictions and scores each from 0 (low risk) to 10 (high risk). No score was adjusted.
The figures were checked against their sources on 24 October 2026. All 177 scores and ranks were read from the Basel ranking page, and the 2024 and 2022 figures from the reports of those years. The 2025 regional averages in Table 5 were recomputed from the 177 scores and compared with the report's regional panels. They match. The FATF column follows the two FATF statements of 19 June 2026, and each note in Table 2 names its source.
This page first went up on 29 September 2020 and was rebuilt on the 2025 index in October 2026. It is to be updated after the FATF plenary that closes on 30 October 2026, and again when the Basel AML Index 2026 is published.
Melis Alparslan, Regional Sales Manager at complead, wrote this page. Ufuk Gürdaş, Compliance Specialist (MASAK certified compliance officer; ICA Certificate in Compliance; MBA in Auditing; 10+ years in banking and fintech compliance), is its compliance reviewer.
Last reviewed: 25 October 2026.
