Belarus — Country Risk Report

Belarus (Europe • Eastern Europe). Risk report as of the 19 Jun 2026 FATF plenary.

High country risk, with governance and transparency concerns. Belarus's country risk score is 6.0/10, placing it in the high-risk band. The principal driver is weak voice and accountability, alongside corruption risk. Belarus is not currently FATF grey- or black-listed. Belarus is not subject to comprehensive country-wide sanctions. Firms should apply additional scrutiny where exposure involves state-linked entities, restricted sectors, sensitive technology, dual-use goods or politically exposed counterparties.

Recommended treatment

Enhanced due diligence.

At a glance

• FATF status: Not currently listed (one indicator only; it does not set the overall country risk rating by itself)
• Comprehensive country sanctions: none identified. Targeted sanctions exposure: programmes in place, screen applicable lists
• Government effectiveness and rule of law: 6.1/10
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 31/100, rank #124 of 182
• Enforcement data: not yet assessed (no RegActions coverage)

Country Risk Score: 6.0/10 (High)

Higher score means higher country risk (global average 4.6). Full information available. Some evidence is older. Enforcement activity and CPI are shown for context but do not change the score.

All three parts of the score are available.

How this score was calculated

• Financial crime controls: 4.6/10 — 50% of this score
• Government effectiveness and rule of law: 6.1/10 — 30% of this score
• International sanctions: 6.2/10 — 20% of this score
• The FATF assessment is more than five years old.
• sector-wide international sanctions means the score cannot be lower than 6.0. This minimum set the final score.

Principal risk drivers

• Sectoral sanctions exposure
• Voice & accountability — 7.3/10
• Corruption (WGI) — 6.4/10
• Rule of law & institutions — 6.4/10

Mitigating factors

• Not currently on the FATF grey or black list.
• No comprehensive country-wide sanctions programme.
• Comparatively stronger political stability (4.1/10).
• Risk is concentrated in specific counterparties, sectors and transactions rather than applying uniformly.

Business impact

• Customer onboarding (High): Additional ownership and control verification may be required.
• Payments and transactions (High): Review transaction purpose, counterparties and geographic routing.
• Trade and export activity (High): Screen goods, end users and potential dual-use exposure.
• Corporate clients (High): Assess state ownership, government links and political exposure.
• Ongoing monitoring (High): Apply alerts for ownership changes, sanctions and geopolitical developments.

Recommended controls

• Verify ultimate beneficial ownership using more than one reliable source.
• Identify state ownership, government influence and politically exposed persons.
• Screen entities, directors and beneficial owners against applicable sanctions lists.
• Apply enhanced review to technology, defence, telecommunications, financial services and dual-use activity.
• Document transaction purpose and source of funds where cross-border structures are complex.
• Escalate unresolved ownership opacity or adverse information to Compliance.

Enhanced due diligence triggers

• State ownership / control
• PEP involvement
• Sensitive / restricted sectors
• Opaque ownership
• Adverse media
• Dual-use goods & technology
• High-risk intermediary routing

FATF status: Not currently listed

Belarus is not on the FATF grey or black list as of the 19 Jun 2026 plenary.

Sanctions: Sectoral

• EU — sectoral: Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine (source)
• OFAC — sectoral: Belarus Sanctions (source)
• UK — sectoral: Republic of Belarus sanctions (source)

Source details

International sanctions by issuing body

• UN: No
• EU: Yes (Sectoral)
• UK: Yes (Sectoral)
• US: Yes (Sectoral)

No means the complete UN, UK, EU and US review found no direct country-level programme. People or organisations may still appear on sanctions lists.

Government effectiveness and rule of law (World Bank 2024, percentile)

• Government Effectiveness: 38/100
• Regulatory Quality: 35/100
• Rule of Law: 36/100

Regulators and legal framework

FATF network

FATF network via EAG.

• Eurasian Group on Combating Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism

Last mutual evaluation: 2019 · report

National regulators

Regulator profiles not yet available on RegActions.

FIU: Egmont Group member (DFM)

Framework signals

• FATF listing: Not currently listed
• International sanctions: sectoral exposure
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 31/100, rank #124 of 182
• Rule of law (WGI): 6.4/10 risk

Sector exposure

• Banking & payments (Elevated): Weak rule-of-law governance (WGI 6.4/10 risk)
• Trade & export controls (High): Sectoral sanctions: Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine
• Crypto & virtual assets (Elevated): Weak accountability governance (WGI 7.3/10 risk)
• Real estate & luxury assets (Elevated): Elevated corruption exposure (CPI 31/100)
• State-linked & procurement (Elevated): State-capture exposure (corruption WGI 6.4/10)

Derived from sanctions tier, FATF listing, World Bank WGI governance and CPI; no per-sector dataset is asserted.

Belarus: analysis

Belarus combines a weak governance profile with a broad sanctions regime. All four governance domains are elevated: voice and accountability is severe, corruption is elevated, rule of law and institutions is elevated, and political stability is moderate. Belarus is not on the FATF grey or black list. However, the breadth of the sanctions regime, covering OFAC targeted measures alongside EU and UK sectoral programmes, materially raises counterparty and transaction risk. The CPI reading reinforces the weak integrity environment.

Outlook

The sanctions environment affecting Belarus is unlikely to ease in the near term given the political situation. Firms should expect continued restrictions on financial flows and elevated due-diligence requirements for any Belarusian nexus. FATF listing is not currently in place but governance weaknesses mean monitoring for potential future listing remains prudent. The next FATF plenary is scheduled for October 2026.

Key watchpoints

• Track changes to EU, UK, and OFAC sanctions programmes relating to Belarus, including any new designations or sectoral extensions.
• Monitor for any future FATF grey-listing of Belarus given its governance profile.
• Apply enhanced due diligence to all transactions and relationships with a Belarusian nexus.
• Watch for changes to CPI and WGI scores that could signal further governance deterioration.

Assessment currency

• FATF status: Not listed (as of 19 Jun 2026)
• Sanctions exposure: Targeted programmes in place (as of Jul 2026)
• Governance (WGI): Latest dataset incorporated (as of 2024)
• Corruption (CPI): 31/100 (as of 2025)
• RegActions assessment: Reviewed (as of 19 Jun 2026)

Public evidence layer

FATF action: none. No FATF call-for-action or increased-monitoring status was identified at the latest plenary. This does not establish low risk.

Contextual signals (not scored)

• FATF network membership: FATF regional network: EAG (present, as of 2026-07)
• EU non-cooperative tax jurisdictions: Not listed in Annex I (absent, as of 2026-02-17)
• Egmont Group FIU: DFM (present, as of 2026-07-17)
• Beneficial-ownership register: No live register identified in the source (unavailable, as of 2026-07-17)
• Transparency International CPI: 31/100, rank 124 (present, as of 2025)

Evidence freshness

• FATF monitored-jurisdiction status: current; data 2026-06-19
• FATF mutual evaluation and follow-up ratings: current; data 2026-07-31; follow-up 2019-12; base assessment 2019-12
• World Bank governance indicators: current; data 2024
• UN, UK, EU and US sanctions regimes: current; data 2026-08-16

Contextual signals are public evidence only and do not change the immutable v2 score.

Download evidence PDF · CSV · JSON

Regional peer scores

• Bosnia and Herzegovina: 6.0/10 (High)
• Bulgaria: 6.0/10 (High)
• Monaco: 6.0/10 (High)
• Montenegro: 6.0/10 (High)
• Russia: 6.0/10 (High)
• Serbia: 6.0/10 (High)

Source: FATF black & grey lists · World Bank WGI (CC BY 4.0 — World Bank WGI) · TI CPI (CC BY-ND 4.0 — Transparency International, display only)