A license, in the context of financial services and regulated sectors, is an official authorisation or permit granted by a competent regulatory or supervisory authority, enabling a person, firm, or organisation to conduct specific regulated activities.
It formally establishes that the licensee has met the regulatory requirements, including capital, governance, compliance, and AML/CFT obligations, that the authority deems necessary for the activity.
In the AML/CFT framework, a license plays a crucial role by signalling that a regulated entity is subject to ongoing oversight, required to maintain internal controls, monitor risks, and fulfil reporting obligations.
Without a proper license when required, a firm may operate outside the regulatory perimeter and pose heightened financial crime risk.
Licensing serves as the foundational gateway into regulated markets.
It not only authorises permissible activities but also triggers the application of regulatory obligations, including AML/CFT, sanctions screening, risk assessment, internal audit, and governance.
From the regulator’s perspective, licensing is a mechanism to control entry, to define the scope of allowed business, to assess the fitness and propriety of operators, and to apply conditions or enforce sanctions.
Licenses vary widely depending on jurisdiction, sector (banking, payments, virtual assets, insurance, trust services), and business model.
Some licenses permit broad banking activity; others are narrowly scoped (for example, money transfer services or digital asset trading).
For the AML/CFT practitioner, the type of licence held dictates the applicable controls, the supervisory regime, and the risk profile of the licensee.
Operating under a licence provides several advantages.
Regulatory legitimacy, access to systems and clearing channels, correspondent banking relationships, and enhanced public trust.
However, it also imposes responsibilities, periodic reporting, inspections, audits, board oversight, capital adequacy, and AML/CFT programme maintenance.
Licensing intersects with AML/CFT in the following ways:
Regulators use licenses to ensure that applicants meet minimum standards for governance, capital, beneficial ownership transparency, and risk management.
By vetting applicant firms, authorities help prevent the entry of higher-risk entities into the financial system.
Holding a license often activates a defined set of compliance obligations:
The licence defines permissible activities and thereby delineates the supervised business model.
If a firm undertakes activity beyond its licence scope, this can indicate a regulatory breach or increased illicit finance risk.
Licence-issuers maintain oversight of licensees via inspections, audits, data submission, and enforcement powers (suspension, revocation).
This ongoing supervision strengthens the control environment against money laundering and financing of terrorism.
From the viewpoint of counterparties and correspondent banks, the presence of a valid licence is a key indicator of legitimacy and oversight.
It aids in risk-rating the entity and determining correspondent or partner “reliance”.
Holding a valid licence often confers market access, bank accounts, clearing access, correspondent relationships, and regulatory legitimacy.
This expands business opportunities for the institution.
By meeting licensing requirements and continuing compliance, institutions reduce exposure to regulatory enforcement, fines, reputational damage, and derisking by counterparties.
The licence condition compels the institution to implement risk-based AML/CFT controls, which in turn strengthen its ability to detect and respond to financial crime.
Licensing carries costs. Initial application fees, ongoing reporting, regulatory audits, compliance staff, training, and certification.
Institutions must weigh benefits against overhead.
A valid licence signals credibility and oversight. Conversely, operating without a required licence can trigger red flags for correspondent banks, counterparties and regulators.
Correspondent banks often rely on licence status to assess partner risk.
Inadequate licensing may result in derisking or exclusion from global payment networks and clearing systems.
Cross-border operations may exploit jurisdictions with lax licensing regimes, creating risks of oversight gaps, consortium abuse, and illicit finance exposure.
Licensees expanding activity beyond their authorised scope can introduce risk.
Shadow banking or unlicensed agent networks may operate outside regulatory view.
New technologies, such as fintech, embedded finance, platform-banking, and virtual assets, challenge traditional licensing frameworks.
Regulators must adapt to innovations while licence-holders must stay compliant.
Licence certificates or authorisations may be forged or misrepresented.
Fraudulent entities may claim licence status while lacking substance, exposing them to AML/CFT risk and regulatory enforcement.
Differing licensing models between jurisdictions create challenges for firms operating internationally.
Harmonising licence definition, conditions, and oversight remains a key task for global supervisors.
National regulators, central banks, financial services commissions, and supervisory bodies issue licences, define conditions, and maintain registers of authorised entities.
They assess applicant fitness, monitor ongoing compliance, and apply sanctions where necessary.
Regulatory standards (for example, Financial Action Task Force’s recommendations) emphasise that licensing and supervision are integral to AML/CFT frameworks.
Licensing supports the principle that vulnerable sectors should be subject to regulated entry and oversight.
Authorities often collaborate via information-sharing, mutual recognition, and cross-border supervision to manage license-holders operating internationally or across groups.
Regulators typically have the power to impose conditions, suspend or revoke licences.
Effective remediation mechanisms exist, including winding-down provisions, transfer of licence, or forced exit to protect depositors, customers, and broader financial integrity.
License status is a key indicator of an entity’s regulatory standing, oversight coverage, and susceptibility to financial crime risk. For AML/CFT professionals, verifying licence integrity and scope is foundational to customer onboarding, third-party risk assessment, and correspondent due diligence.
When institutions incorporate licence checks into their onboarding and ongoing monitoring processes, they achieve:
For firms operating globally, licence regimes can vary significantly; understanding the exact licence scope, conditions, supervising authority, and any licence-related conditions is critical to maintaining compliance and avoiding inadvertent exposure.
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.