June 4th, 2026
On June 1st, 2026, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) revealed that the money transfer firm Wise is under investigation by Belgian authorities over concerns that its accounts are being used to launder proceeds of fraud, corruption, and drug trafficking. This isn’t the first time Wise’s AML controls have come under scrutiny, and the recurring pattern of prior failures raises the question about how Wise governs compliance.
The investigation comes after Wise accounts appeared in hundreds of requests for judicial assistance, totalling €500 million in suspicious transactions. As a payments network, Wise moves hundreds of billions of dollars across borders annually, making strong AML controls a significant investment. Fintechs such as Wise have touted that traditional banking channels are slow and expensive, offering technology as a solution to move money faster and cheaper, which also makes them a high risk for money laundering. The ability to move money quickly allows illicit funds to transfer rapidly between accounts, further enhancing the layering stage of money laundering and obscuring the money trail. Moreover, the ability to move funds quickly between jurisdictions, where regulatory oversight may differ, further complicates tracing the origin of funds.
This is where strong customer due diligence (CDD) measures come into action. CDD is the core part of any AML program, as in order to be able to identify suspicious behaviours, you must understand the customer and their potential behaviours. What stands out from this investigation is that Belgian prosecutors quoted that the ‘indication of non-compliance with AML legislation was particularly due to a lack of proper identification of clients and their activities.’ If the allegations are proven, this shows a serious gap in AML systems for Wise. In 2021, the National Bank of Belgium had already reviewed Wise’s systems and found serious gaps in its CDD program, with many customers missing valid proof-of-address, prompting Wise, in 2024, to implement a remediation plan to fix the gaps and upgrade financial crime controls and systems. This indicates a struggle between compliance and profits. Wise had already been warned about their CDD program, yet they are now under investigation again over it. Throughout this blog, I have emphasised the need to build a culture of compliance, and Wise is highlighting the reason why. Without the support from the top, compliance is seen as a roadblock for progress, while, instead, it should be seen as a factor in growth.
This wasn’t the only time Wise’s AML program came into question. In 2025, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) and five other state financial regulatory agencies took action against Wise US for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and AML/CFT Programs, issuing a $4.2 million penalty. Apart from the fine, Wise US had to also correct deficiencies, hire an independent third party to verify corrective actions, and submit quarterly reports addressing improvements. Three different investigations, in a short span, regarding their CDD/AML program suggest a pattern, more than a one-off corrective requirement. This further reinforces the lack of a compliance culture being built out at Wise.
It can be argued that instead of a compliance culture, it is more to do with a lack of investment in compliance. However, Wise has stated that a third of its global workforce is dedicated to its financial crime team. This suggests Wise has made significant investments in compliance. A third of its workforce is a substantial amount to be in one field. But if this is the case, why has its AML program been under so much regulatory scrutiny? And I think the reason, as I have brought up multiple times in this post, is the lack of compliance embedded in the culture. If the tone isn’t set from the top and has the leadership drive, it makes it easier to sacrifice compliance for profits and to ensure key KPIs for other, more sales-driven teams are being met.
Wise is currently cooperating with authorities and providing all necessary information required to support the investigation. I think once the investigation is concluded, whether or not Wise is found guilty, it needs to look at its structure and fix it from the inside. It should focus on setting the tone from the top, but also make strides in breaking down silos and championing communication between teams to help compliance grow within the firm, which can then be seen in their work against financial crime.
Please also note that the investigation doesn’t indicate Wise as guilty, and no formal enforcement has been taken.
How do you see your firm promoting a compliance culture?
Sources:
California Enforcement Action:
Wise Remediation Plan:
The AML Analyst 
Leave a comment