Three Crime Trends Reshaping Regulation in 2026

Regulators are shifting from broad compliance expectations to targeted enforcement strategies in 2026. The emphasis is no longer on whether controls exist, but on whether they are effective against increasingly sophisticated financial crime and sanctions evasion techniques. Across sanctions, AML, and trade finance, supervisory bodies are sharpening their focus on  areas where systemic weaknesses persist. This blog examines three enforcement pressure points regulators are clearly eyeing in 2026, and what those priorities signal for compliance, technology investment, and operating models in the year ahead.

Evasion Detection Becomes the Focus for Screening

Detecting sanction evasion networks will be a major focus in 2026, alongside corresponding investment in technology. Enforcement bodies will increasingly target the methods and infrastructure of evasion, including opaque ownership structures, falsified documentation, ship-to-ship transfers, and intermediary networks. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in the US for example, has repeatedly published maritime focused compliance guidance aimed at helping industry detect these evasion behaviors. 

Authorities are also increasing their focus on so-called shadow fleets, and I expect this to expand further through 2026. We are already seeing US authorities seize shadow fleet oil tankers with greater rigor. In Europe, sanctions enforcement is hardening. Minimum EU-wide rules for criminal offences and penalties tied to EU restrictive measures have been set, making enforcement more consistent across Member States. The G7 has also formalized coordination mechanisms and published joint guidance aimed at disrupting sanctions and export-control evasion. 

Taken together, these signals point to more coordinated, cross-border enforcement actions against sanction evasion throughout 2026.

Transnational Money Laundering Calls for Cross-border Cooperation 

In 2026, I am seeing a significant scaling-up of cross-border cooperation, as regulators push for better detection of transnational money-laundering and criminal networks. I expect an increased focus on trade-based money laundering (TBML), in part because the FATF has repeatedly stated that TBML remains one of the most significant but under detected types of money-laundering. It is returning to regulatory focus as trade corridors realign, sanctions evasion techniques become more sophisticated, and supply chains increase in complexity. 

Regulatory signals are clear. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) 2025 guidance encourages voluntary cross-border information sharing, reflecting a growing appetite for collaborative approaches, while maintaining Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) confidentiality boundaries. Internationally, Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) continue to emphasize information exchange as a cornerstone of effective AML/CFT, with the Egmont Group reinforcing this as a global priority. 

For financial  institutions, this means greater investment in technology that enables faster (but compliant) information sharing. It also requires updates to policies and procedures, and a willingness to adopt new and evolving legal gateways. In TBML cases, information sharing can improve trade flow visibility, supported by network analytics that connect customers, counterparties, vessels, cargo, and documentation. 

In 2026, regulators are making clear that combating TBML will require coordinated cross-border collaboration, enabled by technology that delivers true network visibility. 

Environmental Crime and Supply Chain Risk Become Core AML Priorities  

Environmental crime is moving from a peripheral AML concern to a mainstream supervisory priority in 2026. This area of organized crime has not received the attention it deserves for too long. The shift is driven by its scale, its links to organized crime, and its integration into global supply chains. 

Illegal mining, logging and fishing, as well as waste trafficking, wildlife crime, and forced labor are increasingly recognized as major money-laundering drivers, and regulators are beginning to treat them as such. 

The evidence is mounting. The FATF has highlighted environmental crime as one of the world’s most profitable criminal economies. They estimate that illegal logging alone generates up to  $152 billion annually. Europol and Interpol have also published assessments describing environmental crime as one of the largest criminal enterprises globally, often intertwined with corruption, violence, and tax evasion. 

The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and forced-labor import bans in the EU, US, and Canada are further embedding supply-chain integrity into regulatory expectations. 

I expect supervisors to ask firms how they identify and manage environmental-crime exposure in 2026. That includes understanding the full set of parties linked to trade (including trade finance) and building a more comprehensive view of customers’ supply chains. 

Institutions will need to strengthen due diligence on counterparties, monitor for ESG-linked red flags, and incorporate environmental-crime typologies into transaction monitoring. TBML controls will increasingly overlap with ESG compliance, making environmental-crime detection a cross-functional responsibility. 

As regulators sharpen enforcement around sanctions evasion, transnational money laundering, and environmental crime, 2026 will test whether firms’ controls truly deliver end-to-end visibility across customers, transactions, and supply chains.  

To discover more about regulatory developments, explore our 2026 Regulatory Horizon Scanning report.