star-1
star-2

Block

In anti-money laundering (AML) and financial compliance, the term “block” refers to the act of preventing or restricting a transaction, account activity, or asset movement when it involves a sanctioned or high-risk individual, entity, or jurisdiction.

Blocking is a regulatory measure designed to stop the flow of illicit funds and ensure that financial institutions do not facilitate transactions that breach national or international sanctions.

When an account, transaction, or asset is blocked, it is effectively frozen—meaning it cannot be accessed, transferred, withdrawn, or otherwise manipulated without explicit authorization from the relevant regulatory authority.

Blocking is most commonly associated with sanctions compliance, particularly in jurisdictions such as the United States, European Union, and the United Kingdom, where financial institutions are legally obligated to block assets belonging to individuals or entities listed on sanctions or watchlists.

Purpose & Function

The primary purpose of blocking is to prevent the movement or conversion of assets that may be linked to criminal activities such as terrorism financing, proliferation of weapons, corruption, narcotics trafficking, or large-scale fraud.

Blocking serves as a preventive mechanism within a broader AML/CFT framework by ensuring that suspicious or prohibited funds are immobilized pending further investigation or regulatory instruction.

Blocking measures are typically initiated when:

  • A financial institution identifies a match between a customer or transaction and a sanctions list entry.
  • Regulatory authorities issue blocking orders or guidance related to specific entities, assets, or jurisdictions.
  • Internal compliance monitoring flags high-risk activity requiring immediate intervention.

Once funds or assets are blocked, they are reported to the appropriate financial intelligence unit (FIU) or competent authority, which determines whether further enforcement actions—such as seizure or forfeiture- should follow.

Blocking vs. Freezing

While often used interchangeably, blocking and freezing have distinct legal and operational meanings:

  • Blocking: A legal prohibition that permanently prevents the transfer, withdrawal, or use of funds without prior authorization. The ownership of the funds technically remains with the blocked party, but the institution holds the assets in a restricted account indefinitely.
  • Freezing: A temporary measure, often preventive, used to suspend asset movement pending investigation or regulatory confirmation. It can later be lifted or made permanent based on the investigation outcome.

In practice, blocking is generally mandated under sanctions regimes, whereas freezing can occur in response to suspicious transaction alerts within AML investigations.

Regulatory Framework

Several international and national authorities define and enforce blocking obligations:

  • U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC): Under U.S. sanctions law, U.S. persons and institutions must block all property and interests in property of designated persons appearing on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List.
  • European Union Sanctions: EU regulations require member states to block funds and economic resources belonging to listed entities.
  • United Nations Security Council (UNSC): Issues resolutions mandating the freezing or blocking of assets related to terrorism or proliferation activities.
  • HM Treasury (UK): Enforces asset blocking under the UK Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

Non-compliance with blocking obligations can result in severe civil and criminal penalties, including multi-million-dollar fines and loss of operating licenses.

Operational Process of Blocking

Financial institutions implement blocking through a structured compliance workflow:

  • Screening: Transactions and customer records are continuously screened against updated sanctions lists (e.g., OFAC, UN, EU).
  • Identification: When a match occurs, automated systems flag the transaction for review.
  • Verification: Compliance officers assess whether the match is a true positive or a false positive.
  • Action: If confirmed, the account or transaction is blocked immediately, and a report is filed with the relevant authority.
  • Reporting: The institution notifies the regulator within the legally prescribed timeframe, typically within 24 hours.

This process is typically supported by automated compliance systems integrated with global watchlist databases and risk engines.

AML Relevance

Blocking plays a critical role in AML and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) programs.

It ensures that financial systems are not exploited to move, store, or legitimize criminal proceeds.

Blocking measures also complement other AML controls such as transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, and enhanced due diligence.

Institutions use blocking to:

  • Enforce international sanctions obligations.
  • Prevent payments to or from blacklisted entities.
  • Stop suspicious or fraudulent transactions before completion.
  • Maintain compliance with domestic and cross-border regulations.

Challenges & Considerations

  • False Positives: Common when screening names with common spellings, transliterations, or incomplete information.
  • Data Accuracy: Outdated sanctions lists can lead to either over-blocking or under-compliance.
  • Legal Ambiguity: In multi-jurisdictional cases, conflicting regulatory requirements can complicate blocking decisions.
  • Customer Impact: Legitimate customers may experience account restrictions due to false alerts, creating reputational and operational risks.
  • Resource Burden: Manual investigation of potential matches requires significant compliance resources and expertise.

Technology in Blocking & Compliance

Advanced technologies are increasingly being integrated to improve blocking accuracy and reduce operational friction.

Machine learning models, natural language processing (NLP), and fuzzy matching algorithms help compliance teams detect nuanced name variations and contextual data links that indicate potential sanctions exposure.

Artificial intelligence (AI) also enables dynamic risk scoring and pattern recognition, ensuring that blocking measures are applied proportionally and efficiently.

Blockchain-based solutions are being explored to facilitate shared, tamper-proof sanctions and watchlist data across jurisdictions, promoting faster compliance decisions and reduced duplication.

Best Practices for Financial Institutions

  • Continuous Monitoring: Implement real-time sanctions and transaction screening.
  • List Integration: Use automated feeds to keep sanctions and blacklists updated.
  • Documentation: Maintain detailed records of all blocked accounts and decisions.
  • Periodic Review: Evaluate blocked accounts regularly for regulatory changes or delisting events.
  • Training and Awareness: Ensure staff understand blocking procedures and escalation protocols.
  • Escalation Protocols: Define clear internal processes for regulatory notification and reporting timelines.

Global Enforcement Examples

  • OFAC Enforcement Actions: Major financial institutions have faced penalties exceeding USD 1 billion for processing payments that should have been blocked under U.S. sanctions.
  • EU Sanctions Enforcement: The European Commission has strengthened enforcement powers to ensure uniform asset-blocking across member states.
  • UN Counter-Terrorism Measures: Mandated asset blocking to prevent the financing of groups designated under UNSC resolutions.

Related Terms

  • Asset Freezing
  • Sanctions Screening
  • Blacklist
    Suspicious Transaction
  • Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)
  • OFAC

References

Ready to Stay
Compliant—Without Slowing Down?

Move at crypto speed without losing sight of your regulatory obligations.

With IDYC360, you can scale securely, onboard instantly, and monitor risk in real time—without the friction.

Get a Demo
charts charts-dark