North Korea — Country Risk Report

North Korea (Asia Pacific • East Asia). Risk report as of the 19 Jun 2026 FATF plenary.

Very high country risk, with governance and institutional weakness. North Korea's country risk score is 8.6/10, placing it in the very high-risk band. Some information is unavailable, so the available parts are rebalanced and the country will not be labelled Low risk while information is missing. The principal score driver is governance and institutions, contributing 2.4 of 8.6 points. Separately, the treatment overlays show that North Korea is subject to a FATF call for action requiring countermeasures, and that North Korea is 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, with restriction or prohibition of higher-risk activity.

At a glance

• FATF status: Black list (one indicator only; it does not set the overall country risk rating by itself)
• Comprehensive country-level sanctions programme identified; this is a legal treatment overlay and does not change the numeric country-risk score.
• Governance and institutions: 6.8/10
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 15/100, rank #172 of 182
• Enforcement data: not yet assessed (no RegActions coverage)

Country Risk Score: 8.6/10 (Very high)

Higher score means higher country risk (global average 5.5). Some information unavailable. Provisional composite score. Limited 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.

Some underlying pillars are unavailable. Available weights are rebalanced; missing evidence is not treated as low risk. Some underlying evidence is unavailable; the available pillars are reweighted transparently and the result should not be treated as equally certain as a composite score. Weight sensitivity 8.4–8.7/10.

How this score was calculated

• AML/CFT effectiveness: information unavailable — 0% of this score
• Technical compliance: information unavailable — 0% of this score
• Governance and institutions: 6.8/10 — 35% of this score
• FATF listing status: 9.5/10 — 65% of this score
• FATF effectiveness ratings are incomplete
• FATF technical safeguard ratings are incomplete
• No FATF mutual evaluation exists for this jurisdiction; FATF's public determination is used in place of assessment ratings

Sanctions treatment: Enhanced legal review. FATF treatment: countermeasures.

Principal risk drivers

• Governance and institutions: 6.8/10 × 35% = 2.4 points

Mitigating factors

• Comparatively stronger political stability (2.9/10).
• Risk is concentrated in specific counterparties, sectors and transactions rather than applying uniformly.

Business impact

• Customer onboarding (Restricted): Most new relationships cannot be established without a licence or exemption.
• Payments and transactions (Restricted): Payments are prohibited except under a licence or a recognised exemption.
• Trade and export activity (Restricted): Goods, services and end users need licence checks before any commitment.
• Corporate clients (Restricted): 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: Black list

High-Risk Jurisdiction Subject to a Call for Action. Subject to call for action and countermeasures. Last reviewed 19 Jun 2026; next FATF plenary Oct 2026.

Sanctions: Comprehensive

• EU — sectoral: Restrictive measures in relation to the non-proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction (source)
• OFAC — comprehensive: North Korea Sanctions (source)
• UK — sectoral: Democratic People's Republic of Korea sanctions (source)
• UN — sectoral: 1718 DPRK sanctions (source)

Source details

International sanctions by issuing body

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

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: 27/100
• Regulatory Quality: 25/100
• Rule of Law: 31/100

Regulators and legal framework

FATF network

Outside the FATF regional network.

National regulators

Regulator profiles not yet available on RegActions.

FIU: Not an Egmont Group member

Framework signals

• FATF listing: Black list
• International sanctions: comprehensive country programme (legal treatment overlay)
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 15/100, rank #172 of 182
• Rule of law (WGI): 7.2/10 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: external-evidence-only · Mapped official authorities: 0.

No credible public domestic regulator source located; FATF currently calls for countermeasures and this must not be represented as a zero-regulator or zero-risk state. External evidence

Evidence level: No local authority evidence level. 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

No authority entry was resolved in the directory snapshot. This is not evidence that no regulator exists.

Download regulatory ecosystem PDF · CSV · JSON

Sector exposure

• Banking & payments (High): FATF call-for-action overlay requires enhanced treatment
• Trade & export controls (High): Comprehensive sanctions overlay restricts most cross-border trade
• Crypto & virtual assets (High): FATF call-for-action overlay requires enhanced VASP treatment
• Real estate & luxury assets (High): BO subscore 9.0/10; CPI context 15/100
• State-linked & procurement (High): Comprehensive sanctions overlay restricts state-linked dealings

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

North Korea: analysis

North Korea's profile combines catastrophic governance with FATF blacklisting and a comprehensive sanctions regime. Governance is driven by corruption (severe), rule of law (severe), and voice and accountability (severe). The FATF black-list status is subject to a call for action and countermeasures as reviewed on 19 June 2026. Comprehensive OFAC sanctions apply, supplemented by UN, EU, and UK sectoral programmes. The CPI reading independently confirms the near-total absence of governance. No enforcement data is available from domestic regulators.

Outlook

North Korea's risk profile is the most acute available in this model and is not expected to improve. FATF countermeasures remain in force, and the multilateral sanctions architecture is comprehensive. Firms must apply the strictest prohibitions and should treat any exposure as a severe red flag requiring immediate escalation. The FATF plenary in October 2026 should be monitored for any listing review, though no change is anticipated.

Key watchpoints

• FATF black-list status and active call for countermeasures require firms to apply enhanced countermeasures in line with FATF Recommendation 19.
• Comprehensive OFAC sanctions prohibit virtually all US-nexus transactions; EU, UK, and UN sectoral programmes extend restrictions across financial services, arms, and trade.
• Monitor all channels for potential evasion typologies, including front companies, third-country intermediaries, and virtual-asset flows.
• FATF plenary in October 2026 should be tracked for any status review, though material improvement is not anticipated.

Assessment currency

• FATF status: Call for action: countermeasures (as of 19 Jun 2026)
• Sanctions exposure: Comprehensive programme in place (as of Jul 2026)
• Governance (WGI): Latest dataset incorporated (as of 2024)
• Corruption (CPI): 15/100 (as of 2025)
• RegActions assessment: Reviewed (as of 19 Jun 2026)

Public evidence layer

FATF action: countermeasures. FATF calls for countermeasures proportionate to the jurisdiction's risks.

Contextual signals (not scored)

• FATF network membership: No FATF or regional-body membership identified (absent, as of 2026-07)
• EU non-cooperative tax jurisdictions: Not listed in Annex I (absent, as of 2026-02-17)
• Egmont Group FIU: No Egmont member FIU identified (absent, as of 2026-07-17)
• Beneficial-ownership register: No live register identified in the source (unavailable, as of 2026-08-23)
• Transparency International CPI: 15/100, rank 172 (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
• 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: 71/100 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

• Myanmar: 7.8/10 (Very high)
• Afghanistan: 7.7/10 (Very high)
• Laos: 7.3/10 (Very high)
• Pakistan: 7.1/10 (Very high)
• Tonga: 7.1/10 (Very high)
• Solomon Islands: 7.0/10 (Very 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)