The European Union is entering a fresh period of a fight against money laundering (AML) regulation reform catapulted by years of scandals and holes in enforcement. The EU hopes that with the introduction of the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) in 2025, a harmonized rulebook in operation now, sanctions in coordination and oversight in one place will succeed where it has failed previously to change the calculus of both financial and non-financial actors. However, there are still question marks: will this form of regime provide actual deterrence or will punishments still be a cost of misbehaviour that is manageable?
The EU’s AML overhaul and its new enforcement regime
AMLA’s expanded authority and harmonized rules
Promised to start full operations in Frankfurt by July 2025, AMLA is the cynosure of the ambitious AML reform package of the EU. As opposed to earlier systems, which were considerably dependent on national regulators, AMLA will have both direct and indirect control of bankers, virtual asset providers (VASP), and luxury dealers among other high risk groups. This allows the authority to impose sanctions directly on serious (or systemic) breaches of the AML Regulation (2024/1620) hence, declaring a sharp U-turn toward centralized enforcement.
This step follows such harmful incidents as the scandal of the Danske Bank with the sum of 200 billion euros and the cross-border laundering probes through both the art markets and through the shell companies. The EU legislators believe that criminal networks which turn up regulatory crannies and gaps in national laws can only be challenged by a co-ordinated enforcement regime.
A stricter framework for financial flows
In parallel with structural reforms, the EU has also implemented standardised cash levels: transactions above 10,000 euros are prohibited at the EU level, and above 3,000 euros must identify the identity of the other party. All these are geared towards cutting access to the cash-based laundering systems that criminals have long preferred over their formal equivalents.
Eliminating discretion on thresholds and penalty structures at the national level, the EU is counting on eradicating regulatory arbitrage and developing a structured system of enforcement able to address the growing complexity of financial crime.
Evaluating whether sanctions truly deter laundering behavior
The limits of financial penalties
Although sanctions and fines are crucial enforcement instruments, their deterring effect is still controversial. Since 2015 European financial regulators have levied billions of fines, predominantly on the banks due to KYC and reporting breaches. Nevertheless, numerous institutions, i.e. major banks falling into the systemically important category, in particular, do break the rules and consider the fines to be a risk premium, but not the threat to survival.
The 2024 KLEPTOTRACE report underscores this dynamic, noting that most sanctioned entities do not experience meaningful internal reforms post-penalty. “Deterrence,” in these cases, appears more symbolic than structural, particularly when profits from illicit transactions dwarf the penalties imposed.
Enforceability across sectors
A major gap lies in non-financial sectors. While AMLA’s mandate now includes real estate, luxury vehicles, and crypto exchanges, enforcement in these domains lacks maturity. Even the supervisory officials experienced in acquaintance of the industry are few, and most newly mandated institutions will not be accustomed to the AML compliance requirements.
In addition, enforcement has traditionally focused on regulated financial institutions and ignored professional enablers lawyers, accountants, consultants and politically exposed persons (PEPs). Unless there is an active dual targeting of these actors, deterrence will not be balanced and working.
Strengthening compliance culture over procedural conformity
Automation and risk-based monitoring
The AMLR requires entities to adopt continuous transaction monitoring, AI-assisted risk scoring, and robust suspicious transaction reporting systems. While these tools increase efficiency, they also produce overwhelming volumes of alerts.The departments of compliance are already overburdened and enforcement agencies will have to go through the faux positives before justifying the actions.
The 6 th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (6AMLD) requires surveillance that is scalable and real-time. Nonetheless, the financial ecosystem is changing dramatically over increasing expenses attributed to compliance, including training personnel and buying technology, to the extent that smaller institutions might not be able to absorb the blow.
Ethics vs. box-checking
More than tools or penalties, the real test is whether firms adopt a genuine compliance culture.Suspected financial institutions that take AML protocols as mere formality are hardly likely to take positive response to sanctions. Rather there should be clear imaginings, including both boards and front-line personnel, that AML enforcement is central to fiduciary and popular esteem nobility.
European regulators such as MONEYVAL and EBA point out that the use of mutual evaluations and public scorecards have to become the norm. They are encouraging member states to incorporate risk assessments and independent audits as part of ensuring there is a long term internal reform in their states, instead of the low attention grabbing fines.
International loopholes, cross-border threats, and coordination challenges
The global context and enforcement boundaries
Money laundering is an international crime. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) keeps putting jurisdiction under weak AML/CFT (Combating the Financing of Terrorism) controls, with a few EU trading jurisdictions as well. These jurisdictions are normally abused by criminal networks as they avoid asset freezes and launder illicit funds.
The AML approach of the EU deals with the increase of transparency of real estate ownership and the standardization of bank accounts records. However, it is being implemented inconsistently among member states and cross-border sharing of data tends to break down because of privacy issues or political opposition.
Civil society’s push for accountability
Civil society organizations have called for transparent publication of AMLA’s enforcement actions, real-time registers of sanctioned firms, and third-party audits of compliance efforts. Otherwise, in the absence of such visibility, they will say, the repeat offenders will still consider AML sanctions as a challenge to manage but below their survival level.
In its EU 2025 Technical Assistance Facility(TAF), the European Commission also offers funding and competencies to vulnerable third countries, with the hope of sealing all the AML loopholes capable of sabotaging the EU-based regimes. However, their success is only possible when there is political will and mutual cooperation, which is difficult to ensure.
Will AMLA’s centralization truly alter compliance behavior?
Early expectations and political risks
The creation of AMLA marks a political and institutional shift long resisted by member states. For years, national regulators preferred discretion over shared enforcement. But with mounting scandals and reputational costs, Brussels moved toward consolidation. The early performance of AMLA will set the tone: whether it targets high-profile offenders or focuses on technical violations will shape its credibility.
The concern is that AMLA may hesitate to confront politically connected institutions or actors, particularly where national governments exercise indirect influence. If the authority fails to demonstrate impartiality and resolve, it risks becoming a procedural upgrade with little behavioral impact.
This person has spoken on the issue
This person has spoken on AML enforcement issues and EU deterrence in an interview with CNBC Europe, stating:
“Centralized rules are only as strong as their enforcement and the willingness to move beyond symbolic fines to real, behavioral change.”
Their comments highlight the structural tension between regulatory ambition and practical enforcement.
🇪🇺14-hours remains until:🇪🇺
— Mr. Man (@MrManXRP) December 29, 2024
• Transfer of Funds Regulation
• MiCA
• Anti-money Laundering reg
What does that mean.
The EU’s MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) regulations introduce licensing for crypto firms, strict stablecoin reserves, and robust consumer protections. Combined… pic.twitter.com/UrP9MZw70d
The uncertain future of AML deterrence in Europe
The EU’s 2025 AML strategy reflects a clear pivot toward institutional coordination and legal uniformity. The creation of AMLA, tighter sectoral controls, and a harmonized regulatory framework represent unprecedented reform. But whether these tools can transform systemic behavior remains in doubt.
The deterrence process finally depends not on small quantities but on the definite enforcement, visibility to the common population, and the promising menace of exposure. The failure of regulators to seal loopholes or go beyond the norm of looking at the suspected cases can give us another round of sanction, circumvention or scandal. The next two years will offer an early verdict on whether the AMLA model can reshape Europe’s financial integrity—or merely add another layer to its procedural complexity.