Crypto AML Standards and EU Regulation 2024/1624

Transparent digital ledger book, globe with network lines, and shield with checkmark seal on a dark background.

Crypto Industry Calls for Unified AML Standards – Blockchain Transparency Framed as Tool Against Illicit Finance

Key Takeaways

An opinion published by Cointelegraph argues that crypto does not have a higher inherent money laundering risk than traditional finance.
Blockchain records create traceable transaction histories that can support investigations into illicit flows.
The European Union AML Regulation (EU 2024/1624) introduces rules affecting the sector, but implementation challenges remain.
Industry-wide information sharing and harmonized standards are described as necessary to close cross-border compliance gaps.

Blockchain Transparency Positioned as Structural Advantage

In an opinion article published by Cointelegraph, Ana Carolina Oliveira, chief compliance officer at Venga, states that cryptocurrencies should not be viewed as uniquely prone to money laundering when compared with traditional finance. She argues that illicit fund transfers are a general issue linked to the movement of money, regardless of whether transactions occur in fiat systems or on blockchain networks.

According to the article, blockchain technology records transactions permanently. This creates an auditable trail that can allow investigators to trace financial flows from origin to destination when suspicious activity occurs. The author contrasts this with traditional finance, where a large share of money laundering is believed to go undetected.

For users of crypto platforms, including exchanges and gambling services that accept digital assets, transaction traceability forms part of the compliance framework that determines how funds are monitored and assessed. The transparency of public ledgers is described as a structural feature that can support anti money laundering efforts when combined with appropriate oversight.

Limits of Current AML Frameworks Across CeFi and DeFi

The article states that the broader anti money laundering system must evolve across centralized finance and decentralized finance environments. While blockchain data is publicly accessible, individual exchanges and platforms do not have full visibility into all onchain activity. Each entity operates with limited insight into transactions that occur beyond its own user base.

Oliveira notes that existing tools such as wallet screening, onchain analytics and the Travel Rule already form part of the compliance architecture. The Travel Rule requires identifying information to accompany certain crypto transfers, comparable to identification systems used in traditional banking networks.

However, the implementation burden falls largely on private companies. The article highlights that regulators have set requirements but left the development of technical infrastructure and integration to the industry. In a sector characterized by companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, this creates complex compliance obligations.

For operators in sectors such as crypto betting and online casinos, these fragmented standards can translate into varying onboarding processes, transaction checks and reporting duties depending on the country of operation.

EU AML Regulation and Cross Border Gaps

The opinion references the recently published European Union AML Regulation, identified as Regulation EU 2024/1624. While the regulation sets out rules affecting the crypto sector, the author argues that practical implementation and coordination remain critical challenges.

Different thresholds and requirements in the United States, the European Union and Asian jurisdictions are described as creating inconsistencies in information sharing, due diligence and Travel Rule enforcement. According to the article, these differences create loopholes that can be exploited by bad actors who shift activity toward less stringent environments.

The difficulty of identifying the owners of self hosted wallets is presented as a key issue. Blockchain addresses are pseudonymous, and additional tools such as mixers can obscure the source of funds. In such cases, determining the origin and ownership of assets becomes more complex for compliance teams.

For international users who move funds between exchanges, betting platforms or wallets across borders, these regulatory differences can affect how transactions are processed and what identification requirements apply.

Industry Cooperation as Proposed Response

A central argument in the article is that greater communication and structured information sharing across the crypto industry are necessary to strengthen anti money laundering defenses. The author calls for collaboration between exchanges, platforms, financial intelligence units and traditional financial institutions.

The article suggests that a global compliance standard applied consistently across jurisdictions would reduce gaps. At the same time, it acknowledges the difficulty of achieving regulatory alignment across regions.

The proposed approach emphasizes closing loopholes while preserving what the author describes as financial freedom in crypto markets. The argument is that harmonized compliance could reduce friction for legitimate users by minimizing the need to navigate different regulatory requirements when switching platforms or regions.

Implications for Crypto Market Participants

The opinion frames anti money laundering measures not as a constraint on crypto markets, but as a structural requirement for long term development. It states that mastering both technical tools and inter platform communication is necessary to move from low tolerance to no tolerance of illicit activity.

For crypto exchanges, sportsbooks and online gambling operators that accept digital assets, compliance frameworks directly affect customer onboarding, transaction monitoring and cross platform transfers. Regulatory clarity and standardized processes can influence operational costs and user experience.

As policymakers continue to refine rules and as industry participants develop shared systems, the balance between transparency, privacy and regulatory compliance remains a central issue in the crypto ecosystem.

Our Assessment

The opinion article published by Cointelegraph presents blockchain transparency and industry cooperation as key components in addressing money laundering risks in crypto markets. It highlights the role of Regulation EU 2024/1624 and the Travel Rule while pointing to cross border inconsistencies and implementation challenges. For international users and operators, the discussion underscores how evolving compliance standards shape transaction monitoring, information sharing and platform requirements across jurisdictions.