Lebanon — Country Risk Report

Lebanon (Middle East • Western Asia). Risk report as of the 19 Jun 2026 FATF plenary.

High country risk, with AML/CFT effectiveness gaps. Lebanon's country risk score is 6.2/10, placing it in the high-risk band. The principal score driver is AML/CFT effectiveness, contributing 3.3 of 6.2 points. Separately, the treatment overlays show that Lebanon is subject to FATF increased monitoring, and that Lebanon has a sectoral sanctions programme. 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 on every relationship, with senior approval and enhanced ongoing monitoring.

At a glance

• FATF status: Grey list (one indicator only; it does not set the overall country risk rating by itself)
• Sectoral country-level sanctions programme identified; this is a legal treatment overlay and does not change the numeric country-risk score.
• Governance and institutions: 6.5/10
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 23/100, rank #153 of 182
• Enforcement data: not yet assessed (no RegActions coverage)

Country Risk Score: 6.2/10 (High)

Higher score means higher country risk (global average 5.5). Full information available. Composite score. Strong supporting evidence. Enforcement activity and CPI are context only; FATF listing and sanctions are regulatory overlays except the labelled FATF listing status used where no mutual evaluation exists.

All three underlying risk pillars are available. All three underlying risk pillars are available and weighted using the published formula. Weight sensitivity 6.1–6.3/10.

How this score was calculated

• AML/CFT effectiveness: 7.3/10 — 45% of this score
• Technical compliance: 3.1/10 — 20% of this score
• Governance and institutions: 6.5/10 — 35% of this score

Sanctions treatment: Screen transactions and counterparties. FATF treatment: increased monitoring.

Principal risk drivers

• AML/CFT effectiveness: 7.3/10 × 45% = 3.3 points
• Governance and institutions: 6.5/10 × 35% = 2.3 points
• Technical compliance: 3.1/10 × 20% = 0.6 points

Mitigating factors

• No comprehensive country-wide sanctions programme.
• Risk is concentrated in specific counterparties, sectors and transactions rather than applying uniformly.

Business impact

• Customer onboarding (Enhanced): Verify ultimate beneficial ownership and control from more than one source.
• Payments and transactions (Enhanced): Review transaction purpose, counterparties and the full payment routing.
• Trade and export activity (Enhanced): Screen goods, end users and potential dual-use exposure.
• Corporate clients (Enhanced): Assess state ownership, government links and political exposure.
• Ongoing monitoring (Enhanced): Alert on ownership changes, new designations and status changes.

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: Grey list

Jurisdiction Under Increased Monitoring. Last reviewed 19 Jun 2026; next FATF plenary Oct 2026.

Sanctions: Sectoral

• EU — targeted: Restrictive measures in relation to the 14 February 2005 terrorist bombing in Beirut, Lebanon (source)
• EU — sectoral: Restrictive measures in relation to the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) on Lebanon (source)
• EU — targeted: Restrictive measures in view of the situation in Lebanon (source)
• OFAC — targeted: Lebanon-Related Sanctions (source)
• UK — targeted: Lebanon sanctions (source)
• UN — targeted: 1636 Lebanon sanctions (source)

Source details

International sanctions by issuing body

• UN: Yes (Targeted)
• EU: Yes (Sectoral)
• UK: Yes (Targeted)
• US: Yes (Targeted)

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: 29/100
• Regulatory Quality: 40/100
• Rule of Law: 38/100

Regulators and legal framework

FATF network

FATF network via MENAFATF.

• Middle East and North Africa Financial Action Task Force

Last mutual evaluation: 2023 · report

National regulators

Regulator profiles not yet available on RegActions.

FIU: Egmont Group member (SIC)

Framework signals

• FATF listing: Grey list
• International sanctions: sectoral country programme (legal treatment overlay)
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 23/100, rank #153 of 182
• Rule of law (WGI): 6.4/10 risk

Regulatory ecosystem and enforcement visibility

This evidence map is separate from Country Risk v3. It describes official mandates, publication access and RegActions coverage; it does not judge regulatory strength or add points to country risk.

Transparency Index: not scored · Evidence disposition: local-authority-evidence · Mapped official authorities: 2.

Evidence level: Level 1: Identity confirmed. The ladder uses the authority evidenceLevel schema directly and does not infer a level from a URL, site access or RegActions feed count.

1. 1. Identity confirmed — The authority and its mandate are evidenced by official directory provenance.
2. 2. Regulatory activity visible — A qualified authority-owned route has provisional dated activity in the first-page scan.
3. 3. Enforcement visible — A qualified authority-owned enforcement route has provisional dated activity in the first-page scan.
4. 4. Score eligible — Shown only when the authority evidence schema explicitly records score-eligible; no authority currently does.

Enforcement visibility: No authority is classified enforcement-visible or score-eligible in the authority evidence schema. Enforcement visibility remains unknown or limited to identity/activity evidence; this is not evidence of no enforcement.

Authorities and mandate evidence

• Central Bank of Lebanon — Level 1: Identity confirmed · Official site challenge-protected

  Mandates: Central bank, Prudential supervision · Access status: Official site challenge-protected · Research/publication snapshot checked: 2026-08-20

  Official authority site

  Provisional first-page scan signal

  Signal: unknown · Observed month count: unknown · Latest observed month: unknown.

  Source access was limited during this research check, so activity remains unknown. This is not evidence of inactivity.

  Scan contract and precision

  automated-first-page-date-scan · 2024-01 to 2026-08 · as of 2026-08-20 · month precision · first-page-only-unvalidated. This is not a validated engagement frequency.

  No publication candidate is qualified. Regulatory activity and enforcement visibility remain unknown.

  Activity and enforcement visibility remain unknown; this access limitation does not establish that the authority has no enforcement activity.

• Special Investigation Commission (SIC) — Level 1: Identity confirmed · Official site reachable

  Mandates: Financial intelligence · Access status: Official site reachable · Research/publication snapshot checked: 2026-08-20

  Official authority site

  Provisional first-page scan signal

  Signal: unknown · Observed month count: 0 · Latest observed month: unknown.

  No qualified authority-owned dated route supports an activity signal. This is not evidence of inactivity; blocked, external-context, low-frequency and unvalidated sources remain unknown.

  Scan contract and precision

  automated-first-page-date-scan · 2024-01 to 2026-08 · as of 2026-08-20 · month precision · first-page-only-unvalidated. This is not a validated engagement frequency.

  No publication candidate is qualified. Regulatory activity and enforcement visibility remain unknown.

Download regulatory ecosystem PDF · CSV · JSON

Sector exposure

• Banking & payments (Elevated): FATF increased-monitoring overlay raises correspondent risk
• Trade & export controls (High): Sectoral sanctions overlay restricts named trade sectors
• Crypto & virtual assets (Elevated): FATF increased-monitoring overlay raises VASP supervision risk
• Real estate & luxury assets (High): BO subscore 6.6/10; CPI context 23/100
• State-linked & procurement (High): Effectiveness pillar risk is 7.3/10

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

Lebanon: analysis

Lebanon combines a severely weak governance profile with current FATF grey listing. All four governance domains are elevated: corruption (severe) is the most pronounced weakness, followed by rule of law (elevated), voice and accountability (elevated), and political stability (elevated). No sanctions apply. The CPI reading confirms Lebanon as a high-corruption environment. The combination of grey-list status, institutional collapse, and very weak corruption controls makes Lebanon one of the higher-risk jurisdictions in the Middle East region.

Outlook

Lebanon's outlook is contingent on political stabilisation, meaningful banking-sector reform, and demonstrated AML/CFT progress sufficient to address FATF concerns. The October 2026 plenary will be a key milestone. Without substantial institutional recovery, the elevated risk is unlikely to ease in the near term. Firms should apply enhanced due diligence to all Lebanon-connected relationships.

Key watchpoints

• FATF plenary outcomes (next: October 2026) and any update to grey-list status.
• Banking sector solvency, capital controls, and financial system stabilisation.
• Corruption perception trends and any anti-corruption enforcement developments.
• Broader political and security developments affecting institutional capacity.

Assessment currency

• FATF status: Increased monitoring (as of 19 Jun 2026)
• Sanctions exposure: Sectoral programme in place (as of Jul 2026)
• Governance (WGI): Latest dataset incorporated (as of 2024)
• Corruption (CPI): 23/100 (as of 2025)
• RegActions assessment: Reviewed (as of 19 Jun 2026)

Public evidence layer

FATF action: increased monitoring. FATF identifies the jurisdiction as under increased monitoring; apply the firm's risk-based controls and monitor remediation progress.

Contextual signals (not scored)

• FATF network membership: FATF regional network: MENAFATF (present, as of 2026-07)
• EU non-cooperative tax jurisdictions: Not listed in Annex I (absent, as of 2026-02-17)
• Egmont Group FIU: SIC (present, as of 2026-07-17)
• Beneficial-ownership register: No live register identified in the source (unavailable, as of 2026-08-23)
• Transparency International CPI: 23/100, rank 153 (present, as of 2025)

Evidence freshness

• FATF monitored-jurisdiction status: current; data 2026-06-19
• FATF mutual evaluation and follow-up ratings: current; data 2026-08-24; follow-up 2023-12; base assessment 2023-12
• World Bank governance indicators: current; data 2024
• UN, UK, EU and US sanctions regimes: current; data 2026-08-30

Contextual signals are public evidence only and do not change the current country-risk score.

Download evidence PDF · CSV · JSON

Contextual risk evidence (not scored)

These eight evidence families provide context only. They do not change the v3.1 headline score. Unavailable means no reviewed, country-comparable evidence is currently ingested; it does not mean the risk is absent.

• Organised crime: Not available. No reviewed country-level organised-crime dataset is currently checked in; no risk value is inferred. Candidate sources are research leads only; they have not been ingested as evidence.
• Fraud and cybercrime: Not available. No reviewed country-level fraud or cybercrime dataset is currently checked in; no risk value is inferred. Candidate sources are research leads only; they have not been ingested as evidence.
• Terrorism and proliferation financing: Not available. No reviewed country-comparable terrorism/proliferation threat dataset is currently checked in; FATF listing status remains a separate overlay. Candidate sources are research leads only; they have not been ingested as evidence.
• Trafficking: Not available. No reviewed country-level trafficking dataset is currently checked in; no risk value is inferred. Candidate sources are research leads only; they have not been ingested as evidence.
• Financial secrecy and offshore exposure: Not available. No reviewed, licence-clean financial-secrecy index is currently checked in; jurisdiction type alone is not used as a proxy. Candidate sources are research leads only; they have not been ingested as evidence.
• Tax cooperation: Not listed in EU Annex I. Annex I is a political/legal tax-cooperation list, not a general AML, corruption, or country-risk score. Source
• Political stability and conflict: 42/100 WGI percentile. WGI is an institutional perception indicator, not a conflict event feed or a prediction of future violence. Source
• Beneficial ownership: Not available. The Open Ownership map is a live-register snapshot and absence means no register was identified in that snapshot, not that no register exists. Candidate sources are research leads only; they have not been ingested as evidence.

Regional peer scores

• Iran: 8.5/10 (Very high)
• Syria: 7.0/10 (Very high)
• Yemen: 7.0/10 (Very high)
• Palestine: 6.3/10 (High)
• Iraq: 6.0/10 (High)
• Kuwait: 5.6/10 (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)