AML Network Risk Rating

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.

Why We Built the AML Risk Rating System

While countless entities are flagged in financial leaks, sanctions lists, or media exposés, most remain unranked, unprioritized, and uncontextualized. This creates blind spots for:

• Due diligence officers and KYC teams
• Journalists and NGOs tracking global corruption
• Government bodies designing sanctions or compliance frameworks
• Risk analysts evaluating exposure to criminal or politically compromised actors

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.

How the AML Network Aggregates Risk Data

Our risk ratings are based on a multi-factor scoring system that synthesizes both quantitative and qualitative data across the following dimensions:

Laundering Exposure Score (0–30 points)

Assesses how clearly the subject is involved in money laundering mechanisms.

• Direct evidence of illicit transactions or layered ownership
• Use of offshore structures or nominee ownership
• Real estate, crypto, or trade-based laundering techniques

Political Protection Index (0–20 points)

Measures the subject’s level of protection due to political influence, state authority, or elite impunity.

• PEP status or royal family link
• Legal immunity or failed prosecutions
• Control over state-owned entities or sovereign funds

Opacity Rating (0–15 points)

Evaluates how difficult it is to trace the entity’s ownership, transactions, and financial activity.

• Use of multiple jurisdictions or shell companies
• Registration in secrecy havens
• Non-disclosure of beneficial owners

Jurisdictional Risk (0–15 points)

Assesses the AML enforcement strength in the entity’s home country or operating jurisdiction.

• FATF grey/black listing
• TI Corruption Perceptions Index
• History of non-compliance or regulatory evasion

5. Investigations & Leaks Score (0–10 points)

Credits entries flagged in reputable leaks, journalistic investigations, or legal proceedings.

• Appearance in Panama Papers, Pandora Papers, FinCEN Files, etc.
• Subject of major international or national probes
• Mention in regulatory enforcement databases

6. Public Harm Potential (0–10 points)

Assesses the social impact or systemic risk of the entity’s activity.

• Misuse of public funds
• Displacement through real estate laundering
• Facilitation of arms/drug/human trafficking

Total Score: 0–100

Entities are scored out of 100 and categorized into one of the following tiers:

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.

How We Ensure Trust and Transparency 

Our risk rating system is designed to reflect the EEAT principles of Google’s Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines, ensuring that users, journalists, and researchers can rely on the data.

Expertise

• Our methodology draws from AML compliance frameworks, FATF guidelines, and banking risk scoring models.
• Profiles are developed by analysts with experience in journalism, law, and finance.
• Our scoring rubrics align with best practices in KYC/EDD (Enhanced Due Diligence).

Experience

• We use cross-sectoral data from financial leaks, watchdog reports, and court documents.
• Profiles reflect real-world case studies where laundering has occurred, not theoretical risks.
• Ongoing updates based on new data ensure relevance and responsiveness.

Authoritativeness

• Sources are always cited — including investigative outlets like OCCRP, ICIJ, and The Guardian, as well as official regulators and transparency watchdogs.
• We engage with academic and NGO partners to cross-validate ratings.
• No anonymous speculation is allowed in our scoring process.

Trustworthiness

• All ratings are backed by evidence. If data is unclear, we mark it accordingly (“unverified,” “suspected,” etc.).
• We offer full transparency in how each score was calculated.
• Appeals and corrections can be submitted by any party with documentary evidence.

Continuous Updating and Review Process

The AML landscape is dynamic. Risk profiles shift due to:

• New investigations or prosecutions
• Changes in ownership or business structure
• Legal reforms or blacklisting by FATF and others
• New leaks or whistleblower disclosures

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.

How Users Can Interpret the Risk Score

The AML Network Risk Rating is a guide, not a verdict. It should be read alongside:

• The full profile and red flag explanations
• External documentation (court filings, news investigations, FATF reports)
• Jurisdictional and sectoral context (e.g. real estate in UAE vs banking in Switzerland)

It is particularly useful for:

• Due diligence analysts performing PEP screening or UBO tracing
• Investigative journalists connecting money trails across entities
• NGOs and advocacy networks targeting financial secrecy and elite impunity
• Academic researchers studying global corruption networks

Sample Use Cases

• A journalist tracking a PEP-linked shell company in Luxembourg cross-references its 89/100 high-risk rating for laundering through real estate in London.
  
  
• A compliance officer at a crypto exchange identifies that a wallet interacting with their platform is tied to an entity with a 77/100 laundering score due to FinCEN exposure.
• A civil society group highlights the score of a local developer (65/100) tied to state-linked corruption in Brazil to advocate for legal reform.

Join the Effort: Transparency is a Collective Responsibility

The AML Network Risk Rating is part of our broader mission to make financial corruption visible, accountable, and ultimately — prosecutable.

We invite:

• Researchers to share open datasets or local leads
• Journalists to cite our scoring methodology and visual badges
• Institutions to adopt our framework for EDD risk reviews

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.

Disclaimer

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.