star-1
star-2

SIPs: Special Interest Persons

Definition

Special Interest Persons (SIPs) are individuals who, due to their background, associations, behavioural patterns, or contextual risk factors, warrant enhanced attention within AML/CFT frameworks despite not necessarily qualifying as Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) or appearing on sanctions or watchlists.

SIPs are identified through risk-based assessments and intelligence indicators that suggest elevated exposure to money laundering, terrorist financing, organised crime, fraud, or other financial crime risks.

SIPs represent a flexible, institution-defined risk category that allows regulated entities to capture emerging, non-standard, or locally relevant risk profiles that fall outside rigid regulatory classifications but require heightened scrutiny.

Explanation

Traditional AML taxonomies, such as PEPs, sanctioned persons, or high-risk customers, are deliberately narrow and prescriptive.

However, real-world financial crime risks evolve faster than formal lists and regulatory definitions. SIPs exist to bridge this gap.

An SIP designation is not an allegation of criminality.

Rather, it is a risk signal indicating that an individual’s profile, behaviour, affiliations, or exposure context merits enhanced monitoring or due diligence.

SIPs may include individuals linked to high-risk industries, regions, entities, or networks, or those displaying transactional or behavioural patterns that raise concern.

Unlike PEPs, SIPs are not universally defined by law.

Their identification depends on an institution’s internal risk appetite, typology libraries, regulatory environment, and intelligence inputs.

This makes SIP frameworks both powerful and potentially inconsistent if poorly governed.

SIPs in AML/CFT Frameworks

SIPs play an important role in risk-based AML/CFT programmes by enabling institutions to respond dynamically to evolving threats.

They are typically embedded within customer risk scoring models, transaction monitoring frameworks, and enhanced due diligence (EDD) triggers.

Key AML/CFT intersections include:

  • Risk-based customer classification beyond statutory categories such as PEPs or sanctioned persons.
  • Dynamic escalation of monitoring controls when new intelligence or typologies emerge.
  • Integration of law-enforcement advisories, regulatory alerts, and internal intelligence findings.
  • Early detection of emerging threats before formal designation on watchlists or sanctions regimes.

Supervisors generally expect institutions to demonstrate awareness of non-listed but high-risk individuals, provided classifications are transparent, documented, and defensible.

Key Components of an SIP Framework

Identification Criteria

Institutions may identify SIPs using a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators, such as:

  • Associations with high-risk entities, industries, or networks.
  • Exposure to jurisdictions with weak AML controls or high corruption indices.
  • Adverse media indicating involvement in financial crime, organised crime, or regulatory breaches.
  • Unusual transactional behaviour inconsistent with declared profile or source of funds.
  • Repeated proximity to suspicious activity without formal listing or conviction.

Sources of SIP Identification

SIP determinations may be informed by:

  • Internal transaction monitoring alerts and investigations.
  • Adverse media screening and open-source intelligence.
  • Law-enforcement or regulatory advisories.
  • Industry typologies and red-flag publications.
  • Network analysis identifying proximity to known criminals or high-risk entities.

Common Categories of Special Interest Persons

While SIP definitions vary by institution, common categories include:

  • Individuals closely associated with known criminals but not themselves sanctioned or convicted.
  • Senior executives or beneficial owners in sectors prone to money laundering (for example, gambling, precious metals, crypto-assets, or cash-intensive trade).
  • Persons repeatedly linked to suspicious transactions or STRs across multiple institutions.
  • Individuals operating in conflict zones or regions with terrorist financing exposure.
  • Professional enablers such as facilitators, intermediaries, or fixers who enable complex financial structures.

Risks & Red Flags Associated With SIPs

SIPs introduce elevated risk because they often operate at the margins of formal enforcement thresholds.

Typical red flags include:

  • Complex ownership or control structures without a clear economic rationale.
  • Use of multiple accounts, intermediaries, or jurisdictions to fragment activity.
  • Frequent changes in counterparties or transaction purposes.
  • Reliance on cash substitutes, digital assets, or informal value transfer systems.
  • Patterns suggesting testing of controls rather than overt criminal conduct.

Because SIPs are not formally designated by regulators, failure to identify or manage them can expose institutions to criticism for weak risk assessment or insufficient vigilance.

Common Methods & Techniques Associated With SIP Activity

Criminal networks and high-risk individuals may exploit SIP status to remain below regulatory radar.

Common techniques include:

  • Gradual layering, where transactions are small and dispersed to avoid triggering thresholds.
  • Use of proxies or nominees, distancing the SIP from direct account ownership.
  • Blending legitimate and illegitimate activity, especially in professional services or trade.
  • Cross-border structuring, routing funds through jurisdictions with uneven oversight.
  • Leveraging new financial products, such as fintech platforms or virtual assets, before controls mature.

Examples of SIP Scenarios

Professional Facilitator in Trade-Based Laundering

An individual operates as a logistics consultant for multiple import-export firms.

While not listed or sanctioned, transaction analysis shows repeated involvement in over-invoicing schemes and circular trade flows.

The individual is classified as an SIP, triggering EDD and enhanced monitoring.

Crypto Ecosystem Enabler

A technology entrepreneur provides wallet infrastructure services to multiple high-risk virtual asset platforms.

Adverse media links the platforms to fraud and darknet activity.

Although the individual is not sanctioned, the association elevates risk and results in SIP designation.

Regional Power Broker

A local business leader in a high-corruption jurisdiction controls multiple cash-intensive businesses.

While not a PEP, the individual has strong informal political influence and recurring exposure to suspicious cash flows, warranting SIP classification.

Impact on Financial Institutions

Poorly governed SIP frameworks can create both under- and over-compliance risks:

  • Failure to identify SIPs may result in undetected laundering or regulatory findings.
  • Overly broad or opaque SIP classifications may lead to unfair de-risking or customer harm.
  • Inconsistent application across business lines undermines enterprise-wide risk management.
  • Weak documentation exposes institutions to legal or supervisory challenge.

Well-designed SIP frameworks, by contrast, strengthen proactive risk management and demonstrate maturity in AML governance.

Challenges in Managing SIPs

Institutions face several challenges when implementing SIP frameworks:

  • Absence of regulatory standardisation leads to inconsistent definitions.
  • Reliance on subjective judgment increases governance risk.
  • Data quality and intelligence gaps hinder accurate identification.
  • Potential legal and reputational sensitivity in labelling individuals as high risk.
  • Difficulty in distinguishing emerging risk from coincidental associations.

To address these challenges, SIP criteria must be clearly articulated, periodically reviewed, and supported by evidence.

Regulatory Oversight & Governance Expectations

While regulators rarely prescribe SIP categories explicitly, they expect institutions to:

  • Apply a risk-based approach that captures emerging and non-listed threats.
  • Document the rationale for SIP identification and treatment.
  • Ensure consistent application across products, geographies, and business lines.
  • Maintain audit trails for decisions involving enhanced scrutiny or restrictions.
  • Avoid discriminatory or arbitrary classifications.

Guidance from bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force reinforces the need for institutions to move beyond static lists and adopt intelligence-led AML/CFT programmes.

Importance of SIPs in Modern AML/CFT Programmes

SIPs are increasingly important as financial crime becomes more decentralised, professionalised, and adaptive.

Effective SIP frameworks enable institutions to:

  • Detect risk earlier than formal sanctions or listings allow.
  • Adapt controls to emerging typologies and technologies.
  • Allocate investigative resources proportionately.
  • Demonstrate regulatory maturity and situational awareness.
  • Reduce reliance on binary classifications that fail to reflect real-world risk.

In practice, SIPs serve as an early-warning layer in AML defences, complementing sanctions, PEP screening, and transaction monitoring systems.

Related Terms

  • Politically Exposed Person (PEP)
  • Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD)
  • Adverse Media Screening
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Risk-Based Approach
  • Financial Crime Typologies

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