Strengthening Financial Crime Controls in 2026: Why Deeper Screening Is No Longer Optional

The MFSA’s Supervisory Priorities 2026 document sends a clear message to the market: financial crime compliance is no longer about having controls in place — it is about how effective, dynamic, and intelligence-driven those controls truly are. 

For boards, MLROs, and compliance leaders, the findings highlight an urgent need to elevate screening frameworks beyond baseline regulatory compliance and into true best-practice territory.

Below are five key takeaways — and what they mean for your organisation.

1. Financial Crime Compliance Is Now a Governance Issue

The MFSA continues to push its outcomes-based supervision model, placing financial crime compliance at the centre of governance, resilience, and market integrity.

The focus is no longer limited to AML frameworks on paper. Supervisors are assessing:

• MLRO authority and independence
• Board-level oversight of AML/CFT exposure
• Integration of financial crime risk into enterprise risk management

Financial crime risk is now treated as a strategic risk — not merely a compliance function.

2. AI, Digitalisation & Cross-Border Risk Increase Screening Complexity

With the rise of AI use cases, cross-border activity, MiCA transitions, and digital operational resilience requirements, the compliance landscape is becoming structurally more complex.

More digital channels.
More cross-border exposure.
More real-time transactions.
More regulatory scrutiny.

Static or semi-manual screening processes simply cannot keep pace with this evolution.

3. The Critical Weakness: Terrorist Financing (FT) Controls Need Deep Enhancement

The most striking insight from the thematic review concerns terrorist financing (FT), sanctions, and proliferation financing controls.

Several concerning gaps were identified:

• 6% do not consider FT risk exposure in their MLRO reports
• Screening frequencies vary significantly (real-time vs daily vs weekly)
• 12% screen only against domestic, EU, and UN lists
• 6% cannot detect ownership/control changes in sanctioned entities in a timely manner
• 14% rely on manual transaction monitoring
• Only 12% apply FT-specific transaction monitoring rules
• 36% lack automated detection of significant transaction pattern changes

The message is clear:

Having transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, and KYC processes in place is not enough.
The depth, automation, responsiveness, and ownership transparency capabilities of those systems determine real effectiveness.

Sanctions risk today is dynamic. Ownership structures are opaque. Adverse media evolves in real time. Risk exposure shifts overnight.

Professional screening must therefore move beyond list-matching toward:

• Advanced ownership and control detection
• Real-time sanctions updates
• Enhanced adverse media intelligence
• FT- and PF-specific rule calibration
• Automated monitoring of transactional anomalies

Anything less exposes organisations to regulatory, reputational, and operational risk.

4. Supervisors Expect Automation, Intelligence & Proactive Controls

The MFSA’s findings reflect a broader European supervisory trend:
Manual processes, reactive controls, and partial list coverage are no longer defensible.

Supervisors increasingly expect:

• Real-time or near real-time screening
• Comprehensive list coverage beyond minimum legal requirements
• Effective detection of beneficial ownership changes
• Automated escalation and audit trails
• Evidence-based FT risk assessments

This is where many firms need to professionalise their screening architecture.

5. Best Practice Requires the Right Technology

To operate in today’s regulatory environment, organisations need screening tools that are:

• Ownership-structure aware
• Capable of detecting control relationships
• Fully automated and continuously updated
• Built for sanctions, FT, PF and AML intelligence
• Scalable across jurisdictions

This is precisely where Polixis’ CheckMate solution becomes a strategic advantage.

CheckMate enables organisations to:

• Detect hidden ownership and control exposure
• Strengthen sanctions and FT screening depth
• Improve risk transparency at onboarding and ongoing monitoring
• Align with supervisory expectations for automation and completeness
• Move from basic compliance to demonstrable best practice

In a landscape where regulators are clearly signalling that deeper, more professional screening is required, CheckMate positions organisations not just to comply — but to lead.

The Bottom Line

The MFSA’s 2026 supervisory priorities highlight a turning point:

Baseline AML frameworks are no longer sufficient.
FT-specific controls must be enhanced.
Ownership transparency must be strengthened.
Screening must become intelligence-driven and automated.

Organisations that invest now in advanced screening capabilities will not only mitigate regulatory risk — they will gain operational confidence, reputational resilience, and supervisory trust.

If your goal is to put your organisation firmly in the Best Practice Game, Polixis’ CheckMate is the perfect tool to make that happen.