Money transfer: the system most people use.

The system most of the world uses

A large part of the world moves money without a bank account, and the businesses that make that possible are among the most heavily suspected and least well understood in financial crime compliance.

The terms, kept straight. Money or value transfer services (MVTS) is the FATF's term: financial services that accept cash, cheques or other instruments and pay a corresponding sum to a beneficiary, through a communication, message, transfer or a settlement network. Money service business (MSB) is the common regulatory label in several jurisdictions, usually covering remittance, currency exchange, cheque cashing and similar. Hawala and other similar service providers (HOSSPs) are treated by the FATF as a subset of MVTS — not a separate category outside the standards, and not by definition illegal.

Why this sector exists, which compliance training usually skips. Migrant workers send money home. The sums are small, the frequency is high, the recipients are frequently rural and unbanked, and the corridors are exactly the ones banks find least attractive. For a great many families this is not a convenience; it is the household income arriving. Where the regulated route is slow, costly or simply unavailable at the receiving end, people use what works.

Three structural features make these businesses different from a bank, and each has a compliance consequence later:

• Agent networks. The provider is often a principal operating through hundreds or thousands of agents — shops, kiosks, petrol stations, phone dealers — each of which sees the customer while the principal sees only the transaction record. The control problem is not the provider; it is the agent.
• Cash at both ends. Cash in at the sending side, cash out at the receiving side, with no account history on either.
• Speed and finality. Funds are frequently available within minutes, and once paid out the money is gone. There is no settlement window in which to reconsider.

A word on language. "Hawala" is routinely used in compliance material as a synonym for criminality. It is not. It is a centuries-old value transfer system, legal in many places, and relied on by people with no realistic alternative. The FATF's own recent work on underground banking is explicit that not every hawala or informal arrangement should be treated as money laundering. An institution whose staff hear the word and reach for a conclusion will make bad decisions and exclude people who have done nothing.

How hawala actually works

The mechanism confuses people because they look for the money crossing the border. It does not cross. What crosses is an instruction and an obligation.

The basic transaction. A sender in country A hands cash to a provider there and names a recipient in country B. The provider contacts a counterpart in country B, who pays the recipient in local currency, usually within hours and often against a simple code or reference. Two local cash transactions have occurred. Nothing has moved internationally.

What has moved is a debt. The provider in country B has paid out and is now owed by the provider in country A. That obligation is the thing the system is built on, and settling it is where the complexity — and most of the risk — lives.

How the debt is settled. The FATF's work on hawala and similar providers describes settlement as generally taking place through net settlement, with recourse to value settlement where needed. In practice:

• Netting against the reverse flow. In a busy corridor money moves both ways — remittances home in one direction, trade payments or investment in the other. The two sets of obligations offset, and only the residual needs settling at all. This is the cleanest and most common mechanism, and it is why high-volume corridors can run for long periods with no cross-border movement.
• Consolidated bank transfers. The accumulated balance is settled periodically through the formal system, frequently via a third party or a trading company rather than directly between the two providers. A single wire can therefore represent thousands of individual customer transactions that the receiving bank never sees.
• Cash couriers. Physical movement of currency to square the balance.
• Trade-based settlement. Goods are shipped and invoices manipulated so that the value owed travels inside a trade transaction. Over- or under-invoicing moves the balance while the paperwork looks like ordinary commerce. The FATF's more recent work describes import-export front companies being used this way.
• Hybrid and network settlement. Recent FATF work describes settlement routed through regulated payment service providers and other licensed services, and network or triangular arrangements where three or more providers settle among themselves rather than bilaterally.

Why this matters to a regulated institution. You will almost never see the customer transactions. What you see is settlement — a large periodic transfer, often from or to a company whose stated business is something else entirely, with no visible connection to the thousands of people whose money it represents.

That has two implications. First, ordinary transaction monitoring on a settlement account is looking at aggregates and will find nothing useful about the underlying activity. Second, the usual questions — who is the counterparty, what is the commercial rationale, why is a trading company paying a remittance firm — are the right ones, and they are frequently the only ones available.

What Recommendation 14 requires

Recommendation 14 is short and its three obligations are easy to state and hard to implement.

1. Licensing or registration. Countries must require money or value transfer service providers to be licensed or registered, and subject to effective systems for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the FATF standards. The point is that the sector is brought inside the perimeter, not left outside it.

2. Unlicensed activity must be found. Countries are required to take action to identify natural or legal persons carrying out MVTS activity without a licence or registration, and apply sanctions. This is the obligation most often neglected, and it is the one that matters most: a registration regime that nobody enforces simply means the compliant providers carry costs their unregistered competitors do not.

3. Agents. Providers must maintain a current list of their agents, accessible to the competent authorities, and MVTS operators are required to monitor and supervise their agents and include them in their AML programmes.

The agent obligation is where most real failures occur. A principal with a large agent network has delegated the only part of the process where a human being meets the customer. The agent is often a small independent business for which remittance is a sideline, staffed by people with minimal training, paid by commission on volume.

That combination produces predictable problems: identification performed poorly or not at all, structuring across a counter that nobody aggregates, collusion where an agent is complicit, and agents continuing to transact after termination because the system was never switched off. A principal that cannot say how many agents it has, where they are, and when each was last reviewed does not meet the requirement, whatever its policy says.

HOSSPs are inside the standards, not outside them. Because hawala and similar providers are a subset of MVTS, the same licensing and registration requirement applies. The practical difficulty is real: a system built on trust relationships and operating partly outside formal record-keeping does not register itself easily, and a country that criminalises it entirely drives it further from view rather than closing it.

The guidance acknowledges the tension. FATF work in this area, including the risk-based approach guidance for the sector, recognises that supervision has to be proportionate — and that pushing the sector underground is a worse outcome than supervising it imperfectly.

Where the risk actually is

Stating the risks plainly is more useful than treating the whole sector as suspicious.

Agent networks. Already covered, and the largest single issue. The risk concentrates in a small number of agents, and the principal's ability to identify which ones is the control that matters. Volume anomalies by agent, customer concentration at one location, repeat beneficiaries, and transactions clustered just under identification thresholds are all visible to the principal and invisible to the bank.

Cash at both ends. No account history, limited verification, and a sender who may be acting for someone else. Structuring is easy and cheap.

Speed and irreversibility. Minutes to payout means the window for intervention is effectively the moment of the transaction. Controls that run overnight do not protect anything here.

Settlement opacity. The point from the second lesson, restated as a risk: the formal financial system sees aggregates. A settlement transfer tells you almost nothing about the thousands of transactions behind it, and trade-based settlement hides the value inside apparently ordinary commerce.

Nesting. A provider gives another provider access to its accounts or network, sometimes several layers deep. The bank at the top has a relationship with one entity and exposure to customers of businesses it has never heard of. This is the same structural problem as nested correspondent banking, and it is the question most worth asking directly: does anyone else use your accounts or your network to move their customers' money?

Sanctions exposure. High-volume, low-value, name-only transactions in corridors that frequently touch sanctioned jurisdictions — with the matching problem made worse by transliteration, incomplete names and short message fields.

And what is not, in itself, a risk indicator. The use of hawala. A corridor serving a diaspora. Cash intensity in a business that is cash by nature. A customer base of migrant workers. These describe the sector. Treating its ordinary characteristics as red flags produces a model that alerts on everything the business legitimately does, which is indistinguishable from having no model.

Banking the sector without cutting it off

De-risking is the defining failure in this area, and it is a compliance failure, not a prudent choice.

When a bank exits money service businesses as a category rather than assessing them individually, the remittances do not stop. They move to providers with weaker controls, to unregistered operators, and to cash — which is to say, out of the one place where anyone could see them. The FATF has been consistent on this point, and its recent work on underground banking makes it explicitly: indiscriminate enforcement or de-risking pushes legitimate users further into informal channels.

The FATF published guidance on correspondent banking services in 2016 in part to address exactly this, clarifying how the standards apply to relationships with MVTS providers. Its central clarification is the one that most needs repeating: serving a money service business does not make that business's customers your customers. You are not required to perform due diligence on the underlying remitters. You are required to assess and manage the risk of the relationship with the provider.

What due diligence on a provider should actually cover:

• Licensing and registration — in every jurisdiction it operates in, verified against the regulator's own record rather than a certificate the customer supplied.
• Ownership, management and track record, including any regulatory action.
• The business model — corridors, volumes, average values, the mix of remittance and exchange, and who the customers are.
• The agent network — how many, where, how they are selected, trained, monitored and terminated; and crucially whether the principal can produce the list. Recommendation 14 requires it to exist.
• Their own AML programme — identification standards at the counter, monitoring, sanctions screening, reporting history, independent testing.
• Settlement — how balances are settled, with whom, through which accounts, and whether trade is involved.
• Nesting — asked directly, and documented.

Monitoring the relationship afterwards. Settlement volumes and values against what was expected; new corridors appearing; counterparties that do not fit the stated model; sudden growth; and transfers to or from trading companies with no evident connection to the business.

What a provider should expect to be asked, and should be able to answer. A well-run money service business can produce its agent list, its termination history, its monitoring reports and its sanctions screening configuration. One that cannot is telling you something real — and that is a finding about that business, not about the sector.

The honest position. These businesses serve people the formal system has not served, and they carry genuine risk that concentrates in identifiable places: agents, settlement and nesting. The work is to find the provider's actual control quality rather than to price the whole category as unbankable. Every institution that exits the sector makes the remaining flows harder for everyone to see — including for the authorities whose expectations prompted the exit.

Your certificate of completion

Enter your name as you want it to appear, then save the certificate as a PDF. In the print window, choose Save as PDF. A certificate is issued once per completion of the course.

Saolix does not record who takes this course, so it cannot verify these certificates. The certificate confirms completion of a free self-paced course and is not an accredited qualification.