Greylist

Definition

A greylist refers to a formal designation used by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to identify jurisdictions under increased monitoring due to strategic deficiencies in their Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) frameworks.

Countries on the FATF greylist are not considered non-compliant but are recognised as having shortcomings that require time-bound remediation and enhanced oversight.

In AML/CFT contexts, greylisting signals elevated jurisdictional risk.

Financial institutions must apply strengthened due diligence and monitoring measures when dealing with customers, transactions, or counterparties linked to greylisted countries.

Greylisting influences cross-border banking, correspondent relationships, investment decisions, and broader financial stability.

Explanation

Greylisting is an intermediate risk classification tool used by FATF to drive compliance improvements without imposing the severe restrictions associated with the black list.

FATF publishes a list of jurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT deficiencies for which authorities have committed to implementing corrective action.

These jurisdictions collaborate with FATF and regional bodies to close gaps in supervision, regulation, financial intelligence, enforcement, and beneficial ownership transparency.

Although not punitive, greylisting has significant economic and reputational consequences.

Countries on the greylist experience heightened scrutiny from regulators, financial institutions, correspondent banks, and investors.

Capital inflows may slow, compliance costs rise, and cross-border operations become more complex.

In some cases, greylisting has affected sovereign credit ratings and foreign direct investment.

Greylisting is not permanent.

Countries may exit the list once they demonstrate adequate progress, usually through reforms, enhanced supervision, improved FIU operations, or implementation of risk-based AML/CFT frameworks.

Conversely, failure to make progress can lead to extended monitoring or potential escalation toward more severe measures.

Greylist in AML/CFT Frameworks

Greylisted jurisdictions are flagged as higher risk within most AML/CFT programmes.

This classification influences customer onboarding, transaction monitoring, risk scoring, and enhanced due diligence requirements.

Institutions often incorporate greylist status into the following:

• Risk assessment methodologies
• Country risk rating models
• Correspondent banking policies
• Sanctions and screening rules
• Transaction monitoring configurations
• Reporting triggers and thresholds

Greylisted jurisdictions may also serve as conduits for illicit financial flows, tax evasion, financial secrecy exploitation, or concealment of beneficial ownership.

As a result, institutions must apply a risk-based approach aligned with regulatory expectations.

Key AML/CFT controls influenced by greylisting include:

Customer Due Diligence (CDD)

Customers with links to greylisted countries may require strengthened verification processes, including validation of the source of funds, the purpose of activity, and the regulatory standing of their entities.

Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD)

EDD becomes mandatory for certain relationships, especially when customers:

• Conduct cross-border transactions with greylisted countries
• Maintain corporate structures registered in these jurisdictions
• Operate in sectors vulnerable to money laundering or terrorism financing
• Perform transactions inconsistent with the stated business purpose

Transaction Monitoring

Greylisting typically triggers recalibration of monitoring rules and thresholds.

Institutions must detect anomalies such as:

• Rapid or unexplained fund movements
• Round-tripping transactions
• Transfers to or from unusual counterparties
• High-value or repetitive cross-border payments
• Multi-jurisdictional layering patterns

Reporting Requirements

Institutions may need to file more Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) based on increased exposure to high-risk activity linked to greylisted countries.

Key Components of the Greylist Mechanism

The greylist reflects FATF’s structured evaluation and monitoring framework.

Core components include:

Mutual Evaluation Process

Jurisdictions undergo comprehensive assessments by FATF or regional bodies.

These evaluations analyse:

• Legal frameworks
• Supervisory systems
• Enforcement mechanisms
• Beneficial ownership transparency
• FIU effectiveness
• Proliferation financing controls

Identification of Strategic Deficiencies

When a jurisdiction exhibits significant but addressable shortcomings, FATF identifies specific remediation areas.

These may include:

• Enhancing risk-based supervision
• Improving STR reporting quality
• Strengthening FIU capacity
• Increasing beneficial ownership transparency
• Tightening financial sector controls

Action Plans

Each greylisted jurisdiction commits to an action plan outlining reforms with defined timelines.

Enhanced Monitoring

FATF collaborates with authorities to track progress through periodic reviews, technical assistance, and follow-up assessments.

Public Statements

Greylisting is publicly announced to ensure transparency and guide global financial institutions in adjusting their risk assessments.

Examples of Greylisting Scenarios

Jurisdiction With Weak Beneficial Ownership Controls

A country with a strong banking infrastructure but limited transparency requirements for corporate ownership may be greylisted due to high vulnerability to shell company misuse.

Inadequate Designated Non-Financial Business and Professions (DNFBP) Regulation

A jurisdiction where real estate firms, lawyers, accountants, and casinos lack AML supervision may be flagged for increased monitoring.

Underperforming FIU

If a country’s FIU fails to analyse STRs effectively, share intelligence, or coordinate with law enforcement, FATF may apply greylist classification.

Terrorist Financing Concerns

Countries located in or near conflict zones may be greylisted for insufficient terrorism financing controls despite otherwise adequate banking regulations.

Insufficient Proliferation Financing Controls

A jurisdiction may appear effective in AML but be greylisted due to gaps in monitoring proliferation financing linked to weapons of mass destruction.

Slow Enforcement and Prosecutions

Authorities may have adequate laws but insufficient convictions or asset recovery efforts, triggering greylisting.

Impact on Financial Institutions

Greylisting creates multiple risk vectors for financial institutions dealing with affected jurisdictions.

Regulatory Risk

Institutions face stricter scrutiny from home-country regulators regarding exposure to greylisted countries.

Operational Impact

Compliance teams must allocate additional resources to:

• Review high-risk customers
• Intensify monitoring
• Update risk models
• Produce enhanced documentation

Correspondent Banking Relationships

Foreign banks may reduce or restrict correspondent relationships with institutions in greylisted countries due to perceived elevated risk.

Risk of De-Risking

Some global banks may discontinue services entirely, prompting de-risking, resulting in reduced access to international banking systems.

Reputational Risk

Institutions transacting with greylisted jurisdictions may be subject to negative perception by regulators, partners, and investors.

Increased Cost of Compliance

Greylisting often leads to:

• Higher transaction screening costs
• Additional investigative effort
• Periodic risk reviews
• Increased audit and regulatory reporting

Impact on Customer Experience

Customers from greylisted countries may face:

• Longer onboarding timelines
• Additional verification requests
• Higher rejection rates for transactions

Challenges in Managing Greylist Exposure

Financial institutions must navigate multiple complexities when handling greylisted jurisdictions.

Dynamic Greylist Changes

The FATF greylist is updated regularly. Institutions must maintain timely awareness of additions or removals.

Data Quality Issues

Insufficient customer documentation from greylisted countries increases the difficulty of establishing legitimacy.

Cross-Border Transaction Complexity

Transactions routed through multiple jurisdictions obscure originators and beneficiaries.

Inconsistent Local Regulations

Some greylisted countries may have weak enforcement or uneven regulatory standards, complicating verification efforts.

Limited Accessibility to Public Registers

Beneficial ownership records may be opaque or outdated, hindering due diligence.

Overlap With Sanctions Risks

Although greylisted jurisdictions are not sanctioned, some may overlap with sanction-prone countries, requiring careful distinction between risk categories.

Regulatory Oversight & Governance

Financial Action Task Force (FATF)

FATF manages the greylist, providing public updates and monitoring jurisdictions under review. It issues recommendations and best practices to help countries rectify deficiencies.

Regional FATF-Style Bodies (FSRBs)

Groups such as APG, MENAFATF, ESAAMLG, and MONEYVAL conduct mutual evaluations and regional follow-ups.

National Regulators

Domestic regulators expect institutions to incorporate greylist status into their AML/CFT controls and risk assessments.

FIUs

FIUs monitor suspicious activity involving greylisted jurisdictions and coordinate intelligence sharing with law enforcement.

International Financial Institutions

Entities such as the IMF and World Bank assess economic impact and support jurisdictions with technical assistance for AML/CFT reforms.

Importance of Greylist Controls in AML/CFT Compliance

Greylist management is a core part of AML/CFT frameworks.

Effective oversight of greylisted jurisdictions helps institutions:

• Align with global regulatory expectations
• Prevent exposure to elevated money laundering and terrorism financing risks
• Maintain correspondent banking access
• Enhance cross-border payment integrity
• Strengthen due diligence and monitoring
• Protect operations from reputational and regulatory harm

Financial institutions must adopt an intelligence-driven approach to greylist compliance, integrating:

• Real-time jurisdiction risk updates
• Dynamic monitoring rules
• Deep-link analysis for cross-border funds
• Beneficial ownership verification
• Risk-based segmentation models

Within an intelligence-first AML architecture, such as the IDYC360 framework, greylist controls become part of interconnected risk detection, due diligence, and decisioning pipelines that support faster, more accurate identification of high-risk activity.

Related Terms

• High-Risk Jurisdictions
• Sanctions
• Enhanced Due Diligence
• Country Risk Rating
• Beneficial Ownership
• Transaction Monitoring

References

• FATF – Jurisdictions Under Increased Monitoring
• FATF Methodology and Mutual Evaluations
• IMF – AML/CFT Assessments and Technical Assistance
• World Bank – Financial Integrity and AML Initiatives

Word Count: ~words

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