As the CEO and founder of COREDO, I see every day how entrepreneurs from Europe, Asia and the CIS face a maze of AML regulations. Since 2016 our team has supported company registrations, obtaining financial licences and implementing compliance in key jurisdictions — from the Czech Republic and Cyprus to Singapore and Dubai. Today, as 6AMLD and the EU AML Regulation change the rules of the game and AMLA gains momentum, choosing the right approach determines success. In this article we analyze AML regulations in the EU, the UK and Switzerland, the key differences and the strategies the COREDO team applies for clients. You will receive practical tools to optimize CDD, reduce false positives and scale your business without risks. In recent years dozens of financial and investment structures have gone through COREDO projects: fintech startups, crypto providers, payment institutions, family offices and holding companies. We have supported clients during bank investigations, regulatory inspections, license interviews and AML remediation projects after fines. It is this hands-on experience that underpins the conclusions of this article.
AML during registration: why is it the main challenge?
As CEO of COREDO I personally take part in designing AML models, negotiating with banks and preparing clients for regulatory inspections. We build systems as if an audit by AMLA, the FCA or FINMA could start the next day.
Registering a legal entity abroad is not just a formality. COREDO’s experience shows: banks and regulators require substance and transparency from day one. In the EU, 6AMLD strengthens directors’ responsibility for beneficial ownership, in the UK post-Brexit AML focuses on SM&CR, and Switzerland through AMLO-FINMA and TLEA emphasizes a risk-based approach.
AML EU vs UK vs Switzerland
Let’s break down the AML comparison by key parameters. The solution developed at COREDO always starts with a risk matrix that takes into account 6AMLD enforcement, Swiss AMLA and UK AML rules.
In our work we use a multi-level AML model:
- regulatory layer (supervisory areas, licenses, AMLA/FCA/FINMA),
- control layer (CDD/EDD, transaction monitoring, SAR, training),
- operational layer (onboarding, IT architecture, data, reporting).
| Aspect | EU (6AMLD, AML Regulation, AMLA) | UK (post-Brexit AML) | Switzerland (AMLO-FINMA, TLEA) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDD/EDD | Mandatory risk-based approach; EDD for PEPs and high-risk; eIDAS for digital ID. Harmonization through AMLA supervisory powers by 2026. | Strict CDD under FCA and PRA cooperation; focus on SM&CR for senior managers. | Enhanced Due Diligence under FINMA oversight; TLEA requires a register of beneficial owners with public access. |
| Transaction monitoring | Centralised AMLA supervision; AI-driven AML systems for false positives reduction. | Decentralised, but influenced by Annex IV reporting; RegTech is mandatory for P2P. | In-house controls under FINMA; Automated KYC with a focus on AML liquidity management. |
| Penalties | Up to 10% of turnover; 6AMLD strengthens criminal liability. | Up to £10 mln; Senior Managers Regime personalises risks. | Up to CHF 500k; AMLO-FINMA emphasises group-wide AML policies. |
| Implementation | Direct applicability Regulation; national transposition by 2027. | Self-regulation with the Bern Financial Services Agreement for equivalence. | Swiss AMLA with CDB 20 revision; FATF compliance through the Bern Agreement. |
Implementation strategies: from registration to compliance
Implementation strategies: from registration to compliance is a comprehensive approach that enables businesses to consistently build a system for regulatory compliance while minimizing the risks of fines and reputational damage. Starting with registration with built-in AML, where correct configuration of onboarding checks plays a key role, companies avoid common mistakes and smoothly move to full compliance through risk assessment, policies and monitoring. Most AML failures occur not at the licensing stage but much earlier — during the design of the structure and the first banking contacts. Therefore, we always view registration as the first element of a compliance architecture, not as a separate legal service.
Registration with AML: common pitfalls
licensing: crypto, forex, payments
AML consulting: automation and scaling
For banks and regulators today, what matters is not so much policies as demonstrable effectiveness of systems: alert quality, speed of investigations, transparency of decisions. These are the parameters we build into AML architecture.
Long-term risks: how to minimize
Non-compliance risks with EU AML Regulation 2027 are reputational and financial. The long-term effects of AIFMD II amplify liquidity risks in the EU vs UK SM&CR. Preparing for TLEA in Switzerland: focus on beneficial owners disclosures.
COREDO offers internal AML department outsourcing: full support from registration to group-wide policies. Our approach is risk-based, with AI AML for false positives reduction and T+1 settlement impact. In all projects we operate on a regulator-first and bank-ready basis: each structure is designed to withstand inspection by the regulator, the bank and the auditor simultaneously.
Conclusion: AML as a competitive advantage
AML in 2026 is no longer about formal compliance with directives. It’s about business architecture, resilience to regulatory risks, and the ability to scale without losing access to banks, investors, and markets.
COREDO’s practice shows: when AML is integrated into the business structure — from company registration to transaction architecture and investor onboarding — it stops being a drag and becomes growth infrastructure. It is precisely this approach that companies choose today when they are focused not on a short-term launch but on a long-term presence in regulated markets.