Europe’s new Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) has claimed crypto assets are “significantly exposed to money laundering” in the region, warning that their anonymity, speed of transfer and cross-border reach make them particularly vulnerable to abuse. In a recent interview, chair Bruna Szego claimed that the EU must remain alert to these risks, especially as many crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) seek licences.
Despite the introduction of MiCA, AMLA cautioned that inconsistent application of rules by the EU’s 27 national regulators could lead to regulatory arbitrage. The authority made clear that oversight will extend beyond technical compliance to the governance level, requiring CASPs to have board members with specific expertise in anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-terrorism financing. The measures aim to close loopholes, but may disproportionately impact smaller or emerging players as well.
A key focus is transparency, as the head urged regulators to identify who ultimately owns and controls crypto platforms, stressing the need to prevent hidden links to illicit finance. This is part of a broader plan that will see AMLA directly supervise around 40 of the EU’s largest and riskiest financial institutions starting in 2028, with several CASPs likely to be included. The challenge lies in ensuring that this scrutiny does not become an administrative bottleneck, where delays in approvals and licensing slow down innovation.
To prepare, AMLA is considering launching thematic reviews of national authorities and conducting joint market analyses with financial intelligence units. The strategy mirrors global warnings from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which recently reported that 75% of jurisdictions are not fully compliant with its AML requirements for crypto assets.
Backlash
On online forums and social media, critics have been claiming that applying these standards too rigidly without accounting for the decentralized nature of blockchain tech could result in excessive centralization of control. In a word, it could undermining the very features that make crypto an alternative to traditional finance.
The broader concern is that while AMLA’s approach addresses legitimate financial crime risks, it may unintentionally erode the accessibility and decentralization that define the crypto sector. Startups and smaller platforms, often the drivers of innovation, may struggle to meet the costly compliance requirements, for instance. Next moves can significantly impact the future of the sector.
