Integrity, Inclusion & FATF’s Grey List

The October 2025 plenary of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) marked a turning point in the politics and perception of international compliance. South Africa and Nigeria, two of Africa’s largest and most systemically significant economies, were formally removed from the Grey List, having demonstrated what the FATF described as “substantial progress” in strengthening anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) systems. For both countries, this decision was as much about reputational rehabilitation as technical reform.

Yet the event invites a deeper question: what purpose does the Grey List now serve? It was designed to drive reform through public accountability, but increasingly it acts as a proxy for geopolitical credibility. As the line between technical compliance and international signalling blurs, the global financial sector is left to interpret a list that shapes risk appetite, investor confidence and cross-border access in equal measure.

Reassessing the Purpose of the Grey List

The FATF maintains two public listings: the so-called High-Risk Jurisdictions subject to a Call for Action (the Black List) and the Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring (the Grey List). The latter is not meant to be punitive; rather, it identifies countries with strategic deficiencies that are actively working with the FATF to resolve them. In practice, however, the distinction has narrowed.

When a country is placed under increased monitoring, global markets take notice. Grey Listing alters the perceived risk profile of an entire jurisdiction, regardless of the actual exposure of any given institution. Credit ratings may dip, investment sentiment contracts, and correspondent banking relationships tighten. According to the International Monetary Fund’s 2021 study on financial access, countries newly Grey-Listed experience an average reduction in capital inflows equivalent to 7.6% of GDP - a staggering penalty for jurisdictions already grappling with constrained liquidity.

The October 2025 delisting of South Africa and Nigeria therefore carries weight beyond symbolism. It acknowledges the tangible progress made in supervision, beneficial-ownership transparency and enforcement. It also restores a measure of confidence for businesses long affected by the stigma of association. As Reuters reported at the close of the plenary, both economies are expected to see gradual improvements in foreign-investment inflows and correspondent-banking connectivity over the next twelve months.

Signals & Consequences for Global Finance

For the private sector, the FATF’s decisions are more than administrative updates; they are signals to the market about where risk tolerance should begin or end. Banks, asset managers and multinational corporations translate Grey Listing into policy: enhanced due diligence, stricter onboarding, or even the termination of long-standing relationships. The list becomes a shorthand for institutional trustworthiness, even where the underlying issues are technical and transitional.

This interpretive function gives the Grey List enormous practical power. The presence or absence of a jurisdiction on the list can determine whether international banks maintain correspondent accounts, whether global insurers underwrite transactions, and whether venture-capital flows reach emerging markets. When risk managers see a country on the FATF’s website, they often respond not with measured proportionality but with pre-emptive withdrawal.

Such behaviour is not irrational. The regulatory burden of justifying continued engagement with a listed country is high, and compliance failures carry severe penalties. However, the result is systemic over-correction: an architecture that prizes procedural defensibility over economic inclusion. The FATF recognises this tension but cannot directly regulate how private institutions respond to its designations. In effect, the list operates as both policy instrument and behavioural cue; a feedback loop that magnifies its impact far beyond the FATF’s intent.

Politics, Power & Proportionality

Although the FATF positions itself as a technical body, its decisions inevitably reflect the political context of global finance. The delisting of South Africa and Nigeria came after months of bilateral engagement, technical evaluation and peer review. Yet observers note that geopolitical currents shape both the urgency and sequencing of such outcomes.

In South Africa’s case, scrutiny intensified following perceptions of ambivalence toward Western sanctions on Russia and concerns over beneficial-ownership controls in state-linked enterprises. Nigeria, similarly, faced pressure to demonstrate more effective terrorism-financing countermeasures amid heightened regional instability. Both nations responded with legislative reforms, increased supervisory independence, and public-private collaboration signalling not just technical progress but a realignment of political will.

Critics, however, argue that the FATF’s consistency remains uneven. Smaller or less strategic jurisdictions often face longer pathways to delisting, even when progress metrics are comparable. As the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) observed in its 2024 analysis of FATF peer evaluations, the perception of political asymmetry erodes confidence in the system’s neutrality. Transparency in how “sustained progress” is defined (and by whom) remains essential if the FATF is to preserve its legitimacy as a global standard-setter rather than an instrument of economic diplomacy.

De-Risking & the Paradox of Compliance

De-risking has become the defining paradox of modern AML/CFT reform. Institutions withdraw from higher-risk markets to avoid regulatory exposure, yet such disengagement undermines the very transparency the FATF seeks to promote. When formal financial channels retreat, informal ones expand and with them, opacity.

Between 2012 and 2022, the World Bank documented a persistent decline in correspondent-banking relationships across developing regions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. Each FATF listing cycle exacerbates this trend. During South Africa’s period on the Grey List, several regional banks reported the loss of U.S. dollar-clearing lines, forcing transactions through costly intermediaries. Small exporters and remittance providers bore the brunt, facing delays and reduced competitiveness.

The economic cost of compliance is measurable; the social cost is not. When humanitarian organisations struggle to move funds into conflict zones because of perceived jurisdictional risk, the principle of financial integrity begins to collide with the principle of human welfare. The FATF has acknowledged this tension, launching its 2023–2025 De-Risking Initiative to encourage proportionate risk-management approaches. However, the onus remains on the private sector to operationalise proportionality, a task complicated by fear of regulatory reprisal.

Recovery, Reform & the Role of Digital Infrastructure

South Africa and Nigeria’s exit from the Grey List offers insight into what effective reform can look like. Both countries moved beyond legislative amendments to build institutional and technological infrastructure capable of sustaining long-term compliance.

South Africa strengthened its Financial Intelligence Centre’s analytical capability and extended AML obligations to a wider array of non-financial businesses and professions. It also advanced its beneficial-ownership register, an area long criticised by the FATF for opacity. Nigeria, meanwhile, implemented targeted reforms across its supervisory agencies, streamlined suspicious-transaction reporting, and leveraged fintech collaboration to improve monitoring.

Technology played an understated but pivotal role. By digitising reporting pipelines, both jurisdictions accelerated data quality and response times. This approach mirrors earlier success stories, notably Mauritius, which exited the Grey List in 2021 after deploying digital risk-assessment tools and creating a joint public-private coordination mechanism.

RegTech has thus become an enabler of integrity. Automated due-diligence systems, artificial-intelligence monitoring and real-time data analytics reduce human bottlenecks and improve evidentiary reliability. However, as with all technological interventions, governance and accountability remain critical. Digital transformation cannot substitute for political will or institutional competence; it must amplify them.

Beyond Compliance: Reclaiming Integrity & Inclusion

The Grey List was conceived as a corrective mechanism, not a punitive one. Its long-term value depends on whether it can evolve into a platform for cooperation rather than a tool of exclusion. The FATF’s October 2025 plenary demonstrated that progress is possible when countries align technical capability with strategic intent. But it also exposed the fragility of trust between the global North and South in shaping financial-crime standards.

For businesses, the implications are clear. Grey Listing is no longer a peripheral compliance issue; it is a determinant of market access and reputational resilience. Firms operating in or with jurisdictions recently delisted must update their geographic-risk assessments, revise due-diligence frameworks, and monitor for residual vulnerabilities. Equally, they must avoid the trap of perpetual suspicion. A country that has demonstrably reformed should not remain indefinitely penalised by the inertia of outdated risk models.

The FATF, for its part, faces a delicate balance. Its credibility relies on rigour and impartiality, yet its influence depends on fairness and inclusivity. The challenge is to sustain global standards without entrenching financial inequality. A proportionate system would reward measurable progress with tangible reintegration, allowing legitimate economic actors to re-enter global markets without stigma.

Ultimately, integrity and inclusion are not competing objectives. They are interdependent. A system that drives financial exclusion in the name of compliance undermines its own purpose. The future of AML/CFT effectiveness lies in restoring proportionality; in recognising that trust cannot be enforced solely through surveillance, but must be built through consistent, transparent engagement between regulators, institutions and the jurisdictions they assess.

Conclusion: Redefining Success in Global Compliance

The October 2025 FATF plenary may be remembered less for who came off the Grey List than for what it revealed about the system itself. Listing and delisting are not endpoints; they are inflection points in a broader cycle of reform, reputation and reintegration. The question now is whether the FATF can reimagine its mechanisms to sustain both integrity and inclusion in a world where financial isolation increasingly equates to economic marginalisation.

We believe the answer lies in reframing success. Compliance must be measured not only by the absence of deficiency but by the presence of access; access to legitimate finance, to transparent systems, and to shared prosperity. If the Grey List is to remain a credible instrument of reform, it must evolve from a warning label into a catalyst for collaboration. Only then can the global financial system claim to balance its twin imperatives: to protect against abuse, and to enable fair participation within it.

Struggling to Stay Ahead of FATF Expectations?

At OpusDatum, we help firms in high-risk jurisdictions navigate FATF scrutiny, manage de-risking, and strengthen AML/CFT compliance. From rapid diagnostics to RegTech-driven remediation, we deliver practical solutions that protect access to global finance.

Get in touch to safeguard your business and restore confidence.