Which international banks and jurisdictions are commonly used to launder or hold misappropriated state assets?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
International money laundering and concealment of misappropriated state assets rely on a mix of onshore banks with weak controls, underground banking networks, and classic offshore secrecy jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Nevis, Belize and Panama; enforcement pressure and information-sharing reforms are changing that landscape [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Recent enforcement and regulatory moves — U.S. banking guidance, OECD transparency on real estate and evolving AML scrutiny — are tightening windows that once made those jurisdictions attractive [7] [8] [9].
1. Big banks and U.S./European financial centers: hidden conduits, public scandals
Major global banks and branches inside large financial centres have repeatedly been flagged in investigations and enforcement actions as channels where stolen or illicit funds moved — for example, reporting on past cases names institutions with New York and London operations and regulators continue to take enforcement actions against large banks for weak AML controls [1] [10]. Available sources document that U.S. regulators still use enforcement and guidance — such as OCC bulletins and SAR FAQs — to push banks to improve monitoring and reporting [7] [11].
2. Underground banking and Chinese networks: alternative rails for cross‑border flows
Underground or “informal” banking networks — prominent in parts of East and Southeast Asia — are now described in reporting as major facilitators of moving large sums outside capital controls and evading formal banking scrutiny; recent journalism traces how Chinese underground banks and brokers facilitate cross‑border swaps and launder proceeds alongside criminal groups [12] [13] [14]. U.S. Treasury and FinCEN warnings and advisory activity reflect this risk and ask formal institutions to monitor ties to such networks [14].
3. Classic offshore secrecy jurisdictions: asset protection and concealment tools
Longstanding offshore favourites for asset protection and concealment — the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Nevis, Belize, Panama, Seychelles and similar territories — continue to be recommended in commercial guides for privacy and asset protection, and academic work shows elites frequently place offshore assets in these jurisdictions [2] [5] [3] [15]. Commercial providers and law firms still advertise Cook Islands and Nevis as “gold‑standard” for trusts and protection, even as international pressure grows [16] [17].
4. Vehicles and techniques: shell companies, trusts, real estate, crypto
The tools used to hold or launder misappropriated state assets include shell companies, nominee structures and offshore trusts in secrecy jurisdictions; real estate and luxury purchases have long been integration points, and new channels such as stablecoins and unhosted crypto wallets are emerging concerns for laundering and sanctions evasion [18] [19] [20]. Reporting highlights that ransomware and crypto flows are predominantly handled through unhosted wallets, and some networks convert cash into stablecoins to hide origins [21] [20].
5. Changing incentives: enforcement, information exchange, and shrinking secrecy
Global policy shifts are reducing—but not eliminating—safe havens. The OECD’s new Immovable Property Information framework and a pledge by 26 jurisdictions to exchange offshore property data show a move toward transparency that will start exchanging real‑estate ownership details by 2029 [8]. U.S. regulatory developments — including intensified AML enforcement and supervisory guidance — are raising compliance costs and narrowing the room for abuse in onshore banks [9] [7].
6. Competing perspectives and limits of current reporting
Sources present two competing dynamics: commercial and legal advisers continue to list jurisdictions that offer privacy and asset protection for legitimate clients [2] [22], while investigative reporting and academic studies document how those same jurisdictions and underground networks are exploited to hide illicit wealth [1] [15]. Available sources do not mention a definitive ranking of which single bank or jurisdiction is the largest conduit for misappropriated state assets; instead they document patterns, notable scandals and evolving enforcement (not found in current reporting).
7. Practical takeaways for investigators and policymakers
Investigators should focus on layered structures that mix onshore bank accounts, offshore entities and underground banking swaps, plus cross‑platform crypto conversions; policymakers should prioritise information sharing on immovable property, strengthen AML supervision of correspondent banking, and target informal networks that bypass formal rails [1] [8] [14]. Sources indicate the problem is shifting rather than disappearing — enforcement and transparency reforms are meaningful but not yet comprehensive [9] [8].
Limitations: this analysis is drawn only from the supplied reporting and commercial guides; specific, contemporaneous lists of “most used banks” for state asset theft are not provided in these sources and therefore are not asserted here (not found in current reporting).