Anti-money laundering

New tools and partnerships strengthen the response to criminal use of cryptoassets

Criminal use of cryptoassets is spreading across the threat landscape as these technologies become more accessible and integrated into global financial systems. But this pressure is also accelerating innovation and collaboration among those fighting back – across law enforcement, industry, research and policy. The strength of that combined response was on show at the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets on 15–16 September 2026. Co-organised by Europol, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNODC and the Basel Institute on Governance and hosted this year by Luxembourg’s Bureau de gestion des avoirs BGA , the conference brought 450 specialists from nearly 90 jurisdictions to the European Convention Center Luxembourg. More than 2,000 people registered online. Iker Lekuona, Director of the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery and co-chair of the conference’s first day, said: We are proud to help bring together such an impressive community of experienced and emerging experts from the public and private sectors, representing so many countries and backgrounds. The energy was palpable. It will help spread and scale the effective tools and approaches shared here, and drive progress on common standards and innovative models of law enforcement and public-private cooperation. Innovation on show Cases presented at the conference illustrated how cryptoassets now feature in cyber attacks, sanctions evasion, terrorist financing, sabotage and political interference. Other sessions exposed the human cost of scams, trafficking and “wrench attacks”, in which criminals use violence to force cryptoasset transfers. Yet the sessions also showcased new ways in which authorities and their partners are responding. The hybrid conference – with the second day reserved for public authorities – showcased: - Advanced tools and techniques for identifying, tracing and seizing illicit cryptoassets, and for dismantling the criminal and money laundering networks behind them. - Cross-border cooperation that is enabling authorities to identify, freeze and secure cryptoassets before they can be moved beyond reach. - New public-private partnerships for sharing operational intelligence on active cases, as well as strategic intelligence on emerging threats and indicators that can help others detect similar activity. - New legal powers, procedures and technologies for securing and managing seized cryptoassets and preserving their value through to final recovery and return to victims or the state. Several of these advances can benefit cases that do not involve cryptoassets. Network analysis, faster intelligence-sharing and closer coordination between investigators, prosecutors and asset recovery specialists can strengthen wider financial investigations and asset recovery efforts. Collaboration builds trust The conference also marked an important step in efforts to develop common baseline standards for blockchain intelligence. A technical breakout brought together representatives of blockchain analytics providers, law enforcement agencies and research organisations. Participants explored how common terminology, data formats and analytical approaches could make blockchain intelligence more consistent and interoperable. This matters because investigators, prosecutors, financial institutions, crypto exchanges, regulators and supervisors increasingly rely on the information these tools produce. Clearer standards can support more consistent customer due diligence and more reliable investigative leads. They can also help ensure that evidence can be explained, challenged and tested in court. A separate breakout led by the Wolfsberg Group examined common problems in suspicious transaction reporting involving cryptoassets. Financial institutions, cryptoasset service providers and public authorities discussed how to make reports more consistent, efficient and useful to investigators. The sessions demonstrated that collaboration goes beyond individual cases. It also means building shared standards and systems that can strengthen broader efforts against crimes involving crypto. On the subject of trust and collaboration, H.E. Ambassador Mary Chirwa of Zambia, added in her closing remarks: Virtual participation greatly expands access, but meeting in person remains essential to building trust. When an urgent cross-border case arises, it helps enormously if the person receiving the call is someone you have already met. Progress, but no room for complacency Significant blind spots remain. Criminal methods continue to evolve fast, regulation and enforcement remain uneven, and many authorities still lack the skills, tools or legal powers they need. But the cases presented on the conference stage and the solutions explored in its breakout rooms showed that authorities and their partners are already adapting their tools and working methods. The priority now is to scale what works: expand trusted regional and international networks, agree common standards, invest in practical capacity building and make effective models of public-private cooperation easier to replicate. About the conference The 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets took place on 15–16 September 2026 at the European Convention Center Luxembourg and online. Three side events on 17 September deepened the practical discussions: - A hybrid Cryptoasset Management Roundtable, co-organised by Luxembourg’s BGA and the Basel Institute, brought together specialist asset management and recovery professionals to share insights and co-develop guidance on the effective management and liquidation of cryptoassets. - A workshop for African public-sector authorities saw more than 40 practitioners from 18 African countries exchanging cases, typologies and practical approaches with their peers. The workshop was a collaboration of the Basel Institute-led Africa Crypto & Asset Recovery Network and the SecFin Africa project, co-financed by the European Union. - A parallel Latin America Crypto & Asset Recovery Workshop, co-organised by the Basel Institute and the UK National Crime Agency under its Illicit Finance project, provided a similar space for around 30 practitioners from 10 countries across Latin America. Learn more - Learn more about the conference at: baselgovernance.org/10crc. - View selected recordings from the conference on the 10 Global Conference YouTube playlist. Photos: Neumann Jérôme Photography.

From private sector compliance to a Financial Intelligence Unit: how specialised education supported this shift

"I wanted to have more impact in helping my country prevent and combat money laundering." In her role as an Anti-Money Laundering Analyst at a commercial bank, Hortensia Uupindi felt that something was missing. After reporting suspicious transactions, she could not see what happened next. This curiosity evolved into a career objective: to transition into a role where she could take a more active part in combating financial crime and safeguarding the integrity of the financial system. With this in mind, she decided to enrol in the postgraduate programme "CAS Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery", delivered by the Basel Institute on Governance together with the University of Basel. In this interview, she shares her experience on taking the course, the ways it contributed to her professional growth and how it helped her transition into her current role at the Financial Intelligence Unit of Namibia. You were working in the compliance department at a commercial bank. What motivated you to take this programme? Working as an Anti-Money Laundering Analyst really opened my eyes to money laundering and its links to real-world financial crimes. Like many countries, Namibia also faces ongoing challenges with predicate offences such as corruption, fraud and tax evasion. At the bank, whenever we identified suspicious behaviour, we reported it to the Financial Intelligence Unit FIU . But we did not get to see what happened after that. At that time, I was familiar with the term “asset recovery”, but I did not understand how the entire value chain worked, with all its processes and challenges. Joining the FIU had always been one of my career aspirations. I was eager to learn more about asset recovery and strengthen my ability to contribute to my country's efforts to prevent and combat money laundering. The programme immediately caught my interest, and I knew it was an opportunity I could not miss. A few months ago, I successfully transitioned into my new role as a Compliance Analyst at the Namibian FIU. What change in perspective did this programme bring to your professional career? The course helped me understand the whole asset recovery process and the role I am playing in combating financial crime. It also showed me how to come up with solutions to resolve some of the challenges that slow the process down. That understanding made me appreciate the work I do on a daily basis even more. The aim is to prevent money laundering, but when an offence has already occurred, we want to recover those assets because they are proceeds of crime and make sure they are reinvested for public good. The Fishrot case in Namibia is a clear example of why asset recovery is so important. The funds that were misappropriated could have been used to support education, infrastructure and social development initiatives that would benefit the wider population. Instead, they enriched only a select few individuals. Recovering these assets would make a significant contribution to Namibia’s economy and development. The diversity of the cohort was another important highlight of the programme. I came from a banking background, but we had people from FIUs, anti-corruption agencies, asset management units and other areas. We could see how our different roles connect along the asset recovery chain. All in all, the programme changed my perspective because it gave me a balance between where I was and where I wanted to be. What was a highlight of the programme for you? There were many, both in terms of the content and the career opportunities. I particularly valued learning about international anti-money laundering frameworks and laws governing offences such as corruption and bribery. It enhanced my understanding of how illicit assets are acquired, as well as techniques for identifying and tracing them, before they are frozen, confiscated, recovered and re-used. Career-wise, the programme expanded my horizons. Before, I didn’t know there were so many career opportunities in the anti-financial crime sector. The lecturers and speakers showed us the diversity in this space. You were able to join the programme thanks to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund. What did this support mean to you? I was fascinated by the programme until I saw the tuition fees. I couldn’t afford to pay for it in full. Then I saw that a scholarship fund was available, so I applied for both the programme and financial support. Being one of the recipients of partial financial support was a blessing. The course came at the perfect time in my career, equipping me with valuable knowledge and practical skills that have strengthened my professional capabilities. I would really encourage individual donors and organisations to continue supporting the scholarship fund. Capacity building is important, because it's only when skilled people are at the forefront of countering financial crime that a real difference can be made to society. What would you say to other professionals, including those in the private sector, who are unsure whether the programme is worth it? The programme is worthwhile. It has a structure that you don’t often find: a mix of practical experience and deep knowledge, combining lectures with real-world experience. It is beneficial for colleagues who already work in this field, but we also had classmates from other fields who are aspiring to enter the sector. It is friendly both for beginners and experienced professionals. The Basel Institute demonstrated a high level of professionalism throughout the programme. The lecturers were highly knowledgeable and generous in sharing their expertise. They consistently took the time to address our questions and brought in professionals from various sectors to provide additional insights. This programme truly has equipped us to play our part in the fight against financial crime. For anyone contemplating, it is truly a worthwhile opportunity. Thank you, Hortensia, for sharing your story and highlighting the impact this postgraduate programme has had on your professional journey. Learn more ::: links - Discover “Combating Financial Crime Through Asset Recovery” - Postgraduate programme delivered online in partnership with the University of Basel. - Contribute to the Gretta Fenner Scholarship Fund - Help train the next generation of anti-corruption professionals. - Discover our offer of short online training courses - Practitioner-led training focused on real-world financial crime challenges. :::

Is this a turning point for asset recovery success in Europe?

Those of us dedicated to fighting financial crime were excited to see the Council of Europe’s recent adoption of an Additional Protocol to the Warsaw Convention, an international treaty on the prevention and control of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Protocol, together with the Warsaw Convention, arguably represents one of the most advanced treaty frameworks on asset recovery. It elevates practices developed in more advanced jurisdictions into binding commitments and raises the baseline for all participating states. It also requires states to rethink their approach to anti-money laundering and asset recovery in several important respects. Among others, it: - places greater emphasis on financial investigations; - strengthens the institutional architecture supporting asset recovery; - obliges states to significantly improve their ability to cooperate in cross-border cases. To achieve these objectives, it introduces a range of operational measures designed to facilitate the tracing, freezing, management and recovery of criminal assets. These include dedicated asset recovery bodies, centralised account registries and enhanced mechanisms for information sharing and international cooperation. This short explainer highlights some of the points that we, at the Basel Institute, find most important and potentially impactful based on two decades of experience of our International Centre for Asset Recovery supporting jurisdictions around the world on anti-money laundering and asset recovery. Why the new Protocol? The 2005 Warsaw Convention – formally the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure, and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism – establishes a comprehensive framework for anti-money laundering and asset recovery. It requires its 39 States Parties to implement anti-money laundering measures, including customer due diligence, suspicious transaction reporting and Financial Intelligence Units. It also requires them to cooperate internationally to identify, trace, freeze, seize, confiscate and return criminal assets. The need to modernise the Convention and respond to evolving forms of illicit finance, digital assets and the increasingly rapid movement of assets across borders drove the adoption of the new Protocol. The Protocol seeks to ensure consistency with emerging international and regional standards, including the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations. It also seeks to make advanced asset recovery mechanisms developed within the European Union framework available across the wider Council of Europe space, which includes 46 European states. Connecting financial intelligence with asset recovery and management The Protocol's main innovation lies in the integration of Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and Asset Management Offices into a coherent institutional architecture. The integration is designed to support rapid intervention, effective asset tracing and management, and cross-border cooperation. By doing so, it strengthens the role of non-law enforcement actors in tracing, safeguarding and preserving the value of assets. First, under the Protocol, States Parties are required to establish Asset Recovery Offices with powers to trace assets, cooperate directly with foreign counterparts and take immediate action to preserve assets, including crypto, in cross-border cases. Second, States Parties are also required to establish Asset Management Offices responsible for managing frozen and confiscated property and for cooperating with domestic and foreign authorities. Third, the Protocol also strengthens the operational role of Financial Intelligence Units in asset recovery by requiring states to grant them powers to temporarily suspend transactions, accounts and business relationships. Many jurisdictions already permit the temporary suspension of suspicious transactions. However, FATF standards do not require Financial Intelligence Units to have such authority. In practice, these reforms recognise that anti-money laundering and asset recovery are closely interconnected. Early intervention significantly increases the chances of successful asset recovery at both domestic and cross-border level. They also emphasise that asset value must be preserved from freezing to disposal. Achieving this requires empowering specialised authorities responsible for financial intelligence, asset tracing and asset management. Streamlining access to asset and ownership data The Protocol requires the establishment of centralised account registries capable of identifying bank accounts, payment accounts, securities accounts, safe deposit boxes and crypto accounts, along with their beneficial owners and any persons authorised to act on behalf of account holders. Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and other competent authorities are explicitly granted access to these mechanisms. This creates a dedicated infrastructure for locating assets within a jurisdiction. It also allows the exchange of such information between authorities in cross-border cases. While centralised bank account registries already exist in many jurisdictions, they are far from universal. Moreover, where such systems do exist, they have traditionally focused on bank account information and often do not extend to other forms of financial holdings, such as securities accounts, safe-deposit boxes or crypto accounts. In practice, this addresses a major operational bottleneck. Identifying accounts usually requires multiple requests to banks and other institutions, which increases the length of financial investigations. Centralised registries significantly improve operational efficiency by accelerating asset tracing and reducing the risk of asset dissipation before authorities can act – an approach now being extended to volatile asset classes such as cryptocurrencies. Maximising the value of financial investigations The Protocol establishes a comprehensive framework to prioritise and enhance asset tracing and financial investigations. The Protocol requires competent authorities to be able to conduct financial investigations without delay, independently or alongside criminal investigations at all stages of proceedings. This includes after a confiscation order has been issued. Such investigations are intended to be flexible in scope and may be used to identify the scale of criminal networks, trace and secure assets subject to confiscation, or gather evidence for criminal or asset recovery proceedings. This emphasis on early and adaptable financial investigation underscores the Protocol’s objective of embedding asset tracing and recovery as a routine component of enforcement processes, while preserving discretion for competent authorities in how these tools are applied in practice. Asset management gets the attention it deserves The Protocol encourage states to shift away from perceptions that asset management is a secondary administrative task and instead view it as a necessary, value-preserving core function of asset recovery systems. It obligates States Parties to establish a detailed asset management framework, that includes: - the possibility of selling seized assets before confiscation where property is perishable, rapidly depreciating or requires specialised management that is not readily available, thereby preserving value pending the outcome of proceedings; and - measures facilitating the reuse of seized and confiscated assets. Experience shows that preserving the value of seized assets requires more than legal powers. It also depends on having clear procedures, dedicated resources and expertise. This is particularly true for complex or newer forms of assets, such as cryptocurrencies. The practical side of asset management is an especially important consideration for many of the Basel Institute’s partner jurisdictions, where asset management has often not been prioritised until now. Lessons from the field show that strong asset management depends on the combination of legal frameworks and the capacity to putting them into practice, including specialized institutions for asset management. Practical ways to enhance international cooperation The Protocol introduces several measures designed to strengthen international cooperation between Financial Intelligence Units, Asset Recovery Offices and Asset Management Offices , as well as judicial authorities. On the latter, key measures we highlight as particularly valuable include: First, mandatory standard forms for the transmission and execution of freezing and confiscation requests. Although model templates already exist in a number of international and regional frameworks, their use is often optional. The Protocol seeks to promote greater consistency in requests, reduce delays caused by incomplete information and facilitate more efficient cooperation between authorities. Second, Joint Investigation Teams established for the purpose of tracing and recovering assets liable to confiscation. Joint Investigation Teams provide a mechanism for authorities to work together in real time, exchanging intelligence and evidence directly without relying on formal mutual legal assistance. While they are already envisaged under instruments such as United Nations Convention Against Corruption, United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and EU law, these frameworks primarily focus on the investigation of criminal offences. By contrast, the Protocol innovatively provides for Joint Investigation Teams dedicated solely to asset recovery objectives. Joint Investigation Teams dedicated to financial investigations already operate in practice, but the Protocol provides a clear legal basis and encourages more systematic reliance on them. The combination of proactive domestic investigations and cross-border teams can be a powerful tool bolster the identification and ultimate freezing of criminal assets on a broader scale. A powerful Protocol that can inspire all States – and is hopefully not a paper tiger The Additional Protocol marks a clear shift in asset recovery towards an intelligence-led and institutionally integrated model of enforcement that also seeks to maximise the value of criminal assets that are seized and recovered by the state. Its practical impact though, will depend less on legislative alignment than on whether states can build the specialised institutions, tools, expertise and cross-border cooperation needed to make early tracing, preservation and recovery operationally effective. Depending on existing capacity, this may require legal reform, technical assistance and targeted training. Without this, the Protocol’s significance risks remaining largely theoretical. In any case, even beyond the Council of Europe space, the Protocol provides a clear blueprint for jurisdictions seeking to strengthen their asset recovery frameworks. Its approach is closely aligned with the principles that guide our work with partner jurisdictions outside Europe. The Protocol will provide an additional tool to support countries in designing reforms that are both ambitious and grounded in their specific legal, institutional and operational realities. View key points PDF .

Virtual assets, real-world crime and the search for effective responses

As the use of virtual assets accelerates worldwide, so too does their appeal to criminal actors looking to move money faster, hide transactions more effectively and stay one step ahead of enforcement authorities. And it’s natural that when people discuss crypto-related crime, the focus is often on governments, regulators, law enforcement agencies and the private sector – crypto exchanges, financial institutions and blockchain intelligence firms. What about international organisations, non-profits, expert networks and professional associations – what role do they play behind the scenes? And how much impact can they really have when it comes to tackling illicit activity involving virtual assets? These questions were at the centre of a webinar co-hosted by the Basel Institute on Governance and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OSCE . The discussion brought together experts from the OSCE, the Basel Institute, the Financial Intelligence Unit of Moldova, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNODC , and the Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime. Across the discussion, speakers kept circling around the same point: the crypto-crime field does not need more vague talk about cooperation or more one-off awareness workshops. It needs practical, sustained and operational forms of support that help investigators, prosecutors and financial intelligence units respond to increasingly sophisticated criminal activity. Beyond awareness raising A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the gap between recognising the problem and building the capability to address it. Speakers noted that crypto-related crime evolves faster than most institutions can adapt. Bots on the Telegram messaging app are now providing money-laundering-as-a-service, as one speaker noted by way of example. Criminal actors – and bots – exploit regulatory gaps, fragmented information-sharing systems and uneven levels of expertise across jurisdictions. At the same time, many authorities are still in the early stages of developing operational capacity. This is where international organisations and networks can play an important role. Not simply by producing guidance documents or organising workshops and conferences – which are necessary but not sufficient – but by helping countries build practical and lasting capabilities. The OSCE shared examples from its regional project on mitigating the money laundering risks of virtual assets, which supports participating states across Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, Central Asia and Mongolia. One example was Moldova’s sectoral national risk assessment on virtual assets. Beyond identifying vulnerabilities, the process helped prompt institutional action and legislative development. The OSCE also pointed to measurable operational outcomes linked to its capacity-building support. Institutions supported through the programme, for example, traced more than USD 100 million in illicit crypto assets in 2025 alone. Why PowerPoint presentations are not enough Several speakers emphasised that complex investigations involving virtual assets and asset recovery require highly specialised expertise that cannot be built through isolated workshops. Investigators need opportunities to apply knowledge in real cases. Financial intelligence units need ongoing mentoring and technical support. Prosecutors need to understand not only the technology itself but also how to present complex digital evidence in court. The Basel Institute highlighted the importance of long-term engagement with practitioners. The approach of its International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR includes combining case-centered training with hands-on mentoring, operational support on live cases and efforts to foster collaboration between different government agencies and with the private sector. Together with highly effective train-the-trainer programmes, the focus is on helping agencies develop capabilities that can evolve alongside changing technologies and criminal methods, rather than delivering isolated workshops. Networks that make cooperation operational The webinar also challenged the tendency to talk about “international cooperation” in abstract terms. In practice, it’s difficult to develop trusting relationships between individuals and institutions operating in very different legal and cultural contexts, especially where there are language barriers. In this environment, organisations such as the OSCE, Basel Institute, UNODC and the Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime can act as connectors between sectors, jurisdictions and professional communities. They can: help investigators and practitioners exchange expertise and emerging typologies; create trusted channels for faster information sharing; connect authorities facing similar challenges across jurisdictions; support the development of common standards and approaches; and bridge gaps between public authorities, financial institutions and technical experts One example is the Global Coalition’s proposal to develop a framework for sharing illict crypto wallet attribution data between public authorities – a major need, especially for jurisdictions without the resources to purchase multiple blockchain intelligence tools. Research and analysis as a basis for action Another important thread running through the webinar was the role of research and evidence-based analysis. As technologies and criminal typologies evolve rapidly, policymakers and practitioners need reliable analysis rather than hype or speculation. Speakers discussed how international organisations support countries by analysing emerging threats, identifying trends and helping governments design informed legal and operational responses. Speakers highlighted several concrete projects, such as UNODC research into scam compounds and cyber-enabled fraud in Southeast Asia and into the links between cybercrime and corruption, and the Global Coalition’s research on links between gaming and crypto-related financial crime. A rapidly evolving challenge The webinar closed with a discussion on what aspects of collaboration participants would most like to strengthen in the virtual assets space. While perspectives differed, there was broad agreement that current models of cooperation and capacity building are still not moving fast enough to match the pace of technological change and criminal innovation. It’s been said many times, but it warrants saying again: As virtual assets continue to evolve at breakneck speed, so too must the international response. The discussion demonstrated that international organisations, non-profits and professional networks can have significant impact – particularly when they focus less on rhetoric and more on operational support, sustained partnerships and measurable outcomes. Speakers With thanks to our moderator, Vera Strobachova-Budway, Head of the Economic Governance Unit, OSCE, and to our excellent speakers: Erlin Agich, Associate Anti-Corruption Officer, OSCE Valentin Draganel, Deputy Head, Financial Intelligence Unit Moldova Alexandru Donciu, Specialist, Financial Investigations – Virtual Assets, Basel Institute on Governance Fabrizio Fioroni, AML/CFT Advisor, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNODC Michal Gromek, Chair, Digital Assets Task Force, Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime Learn more View the recordings: browse the full playlist or go straight to individual interventions: Vera Strobachova-Budway, Erlin Agich, Valentin Draganel, Alexandru Donciu, Fabrizio Fioroni and Michal Gromek, plus the final lightning round. Sign up to the second joint Basel Institute-OSCE webinar on the role of investigative journalists in tackling crime linked to virtual assets, on 2 June 2026. Read the OSCE’s Decoding Crypto Crime – A Guide for Law Enforcement in multiple languages. Learn more about the OSCE Virtual Assets project. Learn about the Global Coalition’s Digital Asset Task Force and how you can get involved. The Basel Institute’s training opportunities are now open to individuals – learn more about short online courses on crypto and blockchain compliance and financial investigations and asset recovery; plus postgraduate courses on anti-corruption and asset recovery.

Advancing trust and standards between banks and virtual asset service providers – lessons from Wolfsberg Group events at the 9th Global Conference

By J. Edward Ned Conway, Executive Secretary, The Wolfsberg Group As virtual assets move into the mainstream of traditional finance, tricky questions arise. What does a reasonable, risk-based control framework look like for banks that provide services to virtual asset service providers VASPs ? And how can compliance teams strengthen private-to-private information sharing to better detect suspicious activity? These were some of the questions tackled by the Wolfsberg Group at the 9th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets, organised by the Basel Institute on Governance, Europol and UNODC and held in Vienna on 28–29 October 2025. The Wolfsberg Group is an association of 12 global banks that develops frameworks and guidance for the management of financial crime risks. Housed at the Basel Institute on Governance, this long-standing initiative brings together senior financial crime compliance leaders through various working groups, including one dedicated to virtual assets. This flagship event provided a valuable platform for the Group to explain its Stablecoin Guidance, gauge interest in a specific Due Diligence Questionnaire focused on VASPs, and further advance efforts to break down silos in private-to-private information sharing. This blog summarises some of the key discussions – dialogues that are continuing in dedicated meetings and consultations of the Wolfsberg Group with members, regulators and institutional partners. Regulatory clarity as a catalyst for TradFi–VASP relationships? Day 1 of the conference saw Ned Conway, Executive Secretary of the Wolfsberg Group, moderate a high-level panel discussion featuring representatives from Circle, Bullish and Société Générale on the theme “Bridging the TradFi–DeFi Gap.” The panel discussed the barriers to relationship building between traditional finance TradFi institutions such as banks and VASPs such as cryptocurrency exchanges and stablecoin issuers. The speakers noted that a lack of trust and understanding persists, particularly around risks specific to virtual assets. That is one reason that TradFi is slow to onboard VASPs as clients and provide them with the banking services they need in order to operate. However, stablecoins are helping bridge this gap by bringing parts of the crypto universe under regulatory frameworks. TradFi institutions underlined that they would benefit from clearer scenarios from regulators on where collaboration and information sharing would be permissible between regulated entities and VASPs. Recent guidance issued by regulators on stablecoins and virtual assets in Asia, in particular, could help improve confidence both ways in the TradFi-VASP relationship. Aligning risk appetite, due diligence and monitoring for suspicious activity On Day 2, a dedicated Wolfsberg side event brought together VASPs, FinTech firms and traditional banks for in-depth discussions. Representatives from several Wolfsberg member banks – Deutsche Bank, Citi, UBS, Société Générale, and Bank of America – joined the sessions. The agenda focused on frameworks for information sharing, but the discussions touched upon a range of hot topics including: risk appetite and the risk-based approach; payment transparency i.e. the travel rule ; and approaches to monitoring for suspicious activity. During the discussions, participants highlighted that one of the main barriers to effective collaboration between traditional financial institutions and VASPs is a lack of mutual trust. Both sectors face difficulties in interacting with each other. The Wolfsberg Correspondent Banking Due Diligence Questionnaire CBDDQ is useful for setting standards, but onboarding challenges could be overcome by framing risk in common language. Many viewed the current onboarding approaches as fragmented, and expressed strong support for the Wolfsberg Group to develop standardised guidance and a due diligence questionnaire for VASPs. Questions remain about what is “reasonable” and “risk-based” for VASPs, especially for smaller institutions, and whether banks should monitor blockchain transactions themselves. VASPs need to be able to articulate their risk appetite, and how this changes as they continue to develop innovative products and services. VASP participants viewed the Wolfsberg Group’s Stablecoin Guidance as applicable beyond stablecoin issuers to the wider VASP ecosystem. This is particularly true for the tailored questions on the underlying control environment, and the linking of risk appetite directly to monitoring approaches. Improving private-private information sharing on suspicious activity Discussion on information sharing between TradFi and VASPs highlighted that this can rely heavily on personal relationships across entities, limiting scalability. VASPs showed concern around sharing wallet addresses under private-to-private information sharing frameworks, given geopolitical trends and concerns around the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation GDPR . However, consensus emerged that better data sharing both increases the quality of suspicious activity reports SARs and reduces SAR volumes. Particularly on this latter point, activities often thought to be suspicious in a silo are better understood when viewed from multiple perspectives, confirming the importance of information exchange. Continuing to build bridges as the financial system evolves Bridging the gap between TradFi and DeFi remains a central theme in the Wolfsberg Group’s strategy. The Vienna events offered a unique opportunity to engage key stakeholders across the sector and advance this important dialogue. The side event was opened by Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director of the Basel Institute on Governance. The Wolfsberg Group extends its sincere thanks to the Basel Institute for the opportunity to co-host this side event and to participate in the 9th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets. Learn more Learn more about the Wolfsberg Group and explores its guidance and resources on managing financial crime risk, including its Stablecoin Guidance. Learn more about the 9th Global Conference and see selected recordings. Find out about the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets on 15–16 September 2026 in Luxembourg.

Case Study 13: The Beauty Queen case: non-conviction based forfeiture across borders

Policy Brief 16: Enforcing foreign non-conviction based forfeiture orders

Addressing conflicts of interest and corruption in Indonesia’s energy transition

Case Study 12: Indonesia: a landmark money laundering conviction in a forestry crime case

Back in action: How the UK is reviving unexplained wealth orders (The Academy Bulletin)