star-1
star-2

Layering: Money Laundering Stage

Definition

Layering is the middle stage of the money laundering cycle, where illicit funds, having already been introduced into the financial system in the placement stage, are moved, structured, converted, and manipulated to obscure their origin and sever any obvious link to the crime from which they derive.

In this phase, criminals seek to create layers of transactions that make tracing the flow of funds increasingly difficult for regulators, financial institutions, and investigators.

In the context of AML/CFT frameworks, layering is particularly dangerous because it typically involves high-volume, cross-border, multi-instrument transactions and exploits gaps in controls, jurisdictional arbitrage, and the complexity of modern financial systems.

This stage often stretches over a prolonged period and may incorporate legitimate transactions to mask illicit ones.

Explanation

Once illicit funds are placed in the system, the layering stage begins the process of distancing those funds from their source.

The launderer may transfer money between accounts in different banks or countries, convert cash into assets or financial instruments, route funds through shell entities, or execute rapid transactions that reduce auditability.

The objective is clear: Transform “dirty” money into funds that appear clean and legitimate.

Because layering is designed to destroy the audit trail, it presents major detection challenges.

The complexity is amplified by the use of multiple jurisdictions, digital assets, trade-based schemes, intermediary entities, anonymised networks, and evolving technologies.

The layering stage sets the foundation for the final stage, integration, where funds re-enter the economy apparently clean.

Layering in AML/CFT Frameworks

Within AML/CFT programmes, institutions must recognise that layering represents one of the highest inherent risks.

It directly influences the design of transaction monitoring systems, the configuration of alerts, the depth of due diligence required, and the escalation process for suspicious activity.

Key intersections include:

Transaction Monitoring and Alerting

Financial institutions should build monitoring rules that reflect layering patterns, such as:

  • Multiple rapid transfers between accounts without an economic purpose.
  • Round-figure transactions or looping transfers that attempt to obscure origin.
  • Use of different currencies, financial instruments, or asset types.

These behaviours often signal layering and require escalation to compliance teams for investigation.

Cross-border and Multi-jurisdictional Risk

Because layering often exploits jurisdictional arbitrage, institutions must consider:

  • Use of shell or offshore bank accounts.
  • Transfers into or out of jurisdictions with weak AML/CFT regulation.
  • Movement between high-risk or opaque financial hubs.

Affiliations with such corridors increase the institution’s exposure to hiding funds through layering.

Asset Conversion and Trade-Based Schemes

Layering may involve converting funds into physical assets or embedding them in seemingly legitimate business activity, for example:

  • Purchase and resale of real estate, artwork, gold, or luxury items.
  • Over- or under-invoicing in trade finance to mask the movement of value.
  • Use of cryptocurrencies and other digital assets to move value across borders.

These forms of layering blend illicit funds with legitimate commerce, complicating detection.

Sanctions and Beneficial Ownership Controls

To detect layering, robust controls around beneficial ownership and sanctions screening are vital, since layered funds may pass through multiple entities to obscure ultimate ownership.

Key risk indicators include:

  • Discrepancies in ownership or nominee structures.
  • Use of shell companies lacking real business activities.
  • Funds are routed through entities with little transparency.

Key Components of Layering

Distance from the Source

The primary objective of layering is to create distance between illicit funds and their criminal origin.

This is achieved through:

  • Multiple transfers between accounts, banks, jurisdictions or asset types.
  • Rapid conversions and movements to reduce traceability.
  • Use of intermediaries, nominee structures, and shell entities.

Complex Structure of Transactions

Layering often employs complex architectures:

  • Use of financial instruments, such as securities, derivatives, prepaid cards or virtual assets.
  • Looping of funds between entities just to confuse the paper trail.
  • Use of legitimate-looking business activity and invoices to justify flows.

Integration of Legitimate Activity

To mask illicit flows, layerers may mix legitimate transactions with illicit ones:

  • Business-to-business payments that appear lawful but actually transfer tainted funds.
  • Charities, NGOs, or other organisations that receive funds under a legitimate guise but subsequently channel them through complex layers.
  • Real-world assets are purchased, held, and sold to sanitise illicit money.

Time- and Volume-based Techniques

Layering frequently uses time and volume as tools to evade detection:

  • Large numbers of small or moderate transactions to avoid thresholds or trigger rules.
  • Rapid transactions across accounts and jurisdictions within short time spans.
  • Use of high-frequency movement to overwhelm monitoring systems.

Examples of Layering Scenarios

  • A criminal entity transfers proceeds from a domestic account into a foreign bank, then sends the funds through several intermediary shell companies before reinvesting in real estate.
  • A fraudster converts cash into cryptocurrency, moves from one blockchain to another (“chain-hopping”), exchanges back into fiat currency, and deposits in multiple accounts.
  • A trade-based scheme where an importer over-invoices goods, pays the excess value to a shell company in a tax-haven country, then that entity re-routes the money through another entity for “services.”
  • A business recipient of illicit funds invoices a legitimate company for services never provided; the company pays, the funds move across borders, and then return to the criminal as “dividends”.
  • A high-net-worth individual uses corporate structures to purchase art, resells it through an auction house, then deposits the proceeds as part of a legitimate investment portfolio.

Impact on Financial Institutions

Increased Compliance Risk

Because layering is designed to hide illicit flows, institutions that fail to detect it may face regulatory penalties, enforcement actions, and reputational damage.

Operational Burden

Investigations into layering require cross-functional teams, forensic expertise, transaction graphs, and often international cooperation.

This puts pressure on AML teams and resources.

Monitoring Complexity

The layer stage demands sophisticated analytics and detection capabilities.

Traditional rule-based systems may struggle to identify complex layering chains or new methods such as crypto layering.

Reputational Exposure

Association with layered funds, even unknowingly, can erode trust with regulators, customers, correspondents, and counterparties.

Financial institutions must remain vigilant to maintain credibility.

Challenges in Detecting and Preventing Layering

High Complexity and Sophistication

Layering schemes are by design highly complex, using multiple instruments and jurisdictions, making them extremely difficult to detect.

Data and Transparency Gaps

Effective layering often occurs in jurisdictions with weak AML/CFT oversight or opaque corporate regimes, limiting visibility for compliance teams.

Emergence of New Technologies

The rise of virtual assets, decentralised finance, online gaming, and fintech platforms offers new channels for layering that outpace traditional monitoring.

Legitimate Activity as Cover

Because layering relies on blending illicit flows into legitimate commerce, distinguishing suspicious from normal flows is inherently challenging.

Regulatory Oversight & Governance

Regulatory Authorities

Regulatory bodies expect financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs) to implement risk-based controls capable of identifying layered risks.

These requirements include:

  • Enhanced transaction monitoring and alerting.
  • Strong beneficial ownership and corporate transparency rules.
  • Cross-border cooperation and information-sharing.

Internal Governance and Audit

Institutions must ensure adequate governance structures for monitoring layering, including:

  • Board oversight of ML/TF risks.
  • Audit review of the effectiveness of detection systems.
  • Continuous training of staff to recognise evolving layering methods.

Industry Guidance

Guidance from international and regional bodies emphasises the need to adapt controls to layering trends, including digital assets, trade-based laundering, and multi-jurisdictional flows.

Importance of Addressing Layering in AML/CFT Compliance

By understanding and targeting layering, institutions strengthen their overall financial crime framework.

Effective detection and mitigation of layering supports the entire AML/CFT lifecycle:

  • It enhances early detection of suspicious flows that may underpin broader illicit activity.
  • It supports integration with fraud prevention, sanctions screening, and trade compliance.
  • It reduces the risk of major enforcement or reputational events.
  • It enables a holistic, intelligence-driven approach to financial crime prevention.

In today’s globalised and digitised financial environment, layering remains a central threat vector.

Financial institutions and DNFBPs must build resilient controls, advanced analytics and strong governance to stay ahead of evolving money laundering schemes.

Related Terms

  • Placement (Money Laundering Stage)
  • Integration (Money Laundering Stage)
  • Trade-Based Money Laundering
  • Shell Company
  • Structuring/Smurfing
  • Transaction Monitoring

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