Menu
In a global economy where illicit finance is layered, obscured, and enabled across jurisdictions, risk clarity is not optional — it is essential. The AML Network Risk Rating system empowers investigators, compliance professionals, journalists, and the public with transparent, structured, and evidence-based assessments of entities and individuals involved in money laundering typologies.
This landing page explains how we assign risk ratings, what data we analyze, and how our methodology reinforces trustworthiness and integrity across the AML Network’s broader platform.
While countless entities are flagged in financial leaks, sanctions lists, or media exposés, most remain unranked, unprioritized, and uncontextualized. This creates blind spots for:
The AML Network Risk Rating provides a comparative, contextual score for each profile in our Watchdog Database. It helps users understand relative risk levels, even across different typologies like PEPs, shell companies, or corporate laundering hubs.
Our aim is not just to expose — it is to standardize risk intelligence in a format that is actionable, auditable, and trusted.
Our risk ratings are based on a multi-factor scoring system that synthesizes both quantitative and qualitative data across the following dimensions:
Assesses how clearly the subject is involved in money laundering mechanisms.
Measures the subject’s level of protection due to political influence, state authority, or elite impunity.
Evaluates how difficult it is to trace the entity’s ownership, transactions, and financial activity.
Assesses the AML enforcement strength in the entity’s home country or operating jurisdiction.
Credits entries flagged in reputable leaks, journalistic investigations, or legal proceedings.
Assesses the social impact or systemic risk of the entity’s activity.
Entities are scored out of 100 and categorized into one of the following tiers:
Risk Level | Score Range | Description |
High Risk | 70–100 | Strong indicators of laundering, elite protection, and systemic opacity |
Medium Risk | 40–69 | Multiple red flags with some evidence gaps or jurisdictional uncertainty |
Low Risk | 0–39 | Limited indicators or peripheral involvement with cautionary notes |
Each profile includes a risk score badge, a justification breakdown, and source references for each category. No rating is assigned without verifiable or triangulated data.
We ensure trust and transparency by relying on verifiable data sources, independent investigations, and clear documentation standards. Every entry in our databases is backed by public records, regulatory disclosures, or credible reporting. We maintain strict editorial oversight, avoid conflicts of interest, and publish methodology notes to ensure that our work supports financial integrity, public accountability, and informed decision-making in the fight against illicit finance.
The AML landscape is dynamic. Risk profiles shift due to:
We review each high-risk profile every 6–12 months and update entries accordingly. Significant changes are timestamped for visibility.
Entities may move up or down the risk spectrum based on updated evidence, regulatory action, or independent verification.
The AML Network Risk Rating is a guide, not a verdict. It should be read alongside:
It is particularly useful for:
The AML Network Risk Rating is part of our broader mission to make financial corruption visible, accountable, and ultimately — prosecutable.
We invite:
Want to contribute a case or submit evidence? Visit our submission page.
Request access to structured data or integrate with your tools? API integration options are available for vetted partners.
Our Risk Ratings are based on publicly available data, media investigations, and expert analysis. They are not definitive legal conclusions but informational risk assessments intended for public awareness, academic use, and advocacy. We welcome corrections or additional documentation from involved parties.