South Sudan — Country Risk Report

South Sudan (Africa • East Africa). Risk report as of the 19 Jun 2026 FATF plenary.

Very high country risk, with elevated corruption risk. South Sudan's country risk score is 7.3/10, 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 driver is weak corruption, alongside rule of law and institutions risk. South Sudan is subject to FATF increased monitoring. South Sudan 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: Grey list (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: 7.9/10
  • Corruption (CPI 2025): 9/100, rank #181 of 182
  • Enforcement data: not yet assessed (no RegActions coverage)

Country Risk Score: 7.3/10 (Very high)

Higher score means higher country risk (global average 4.6). Some information unavailable. Limited supporting information. Enforcement activity and CPI are shown for context but do not change the score.

One of the three parts is unavailable. The available parts are rebalanced, and the result will not be labelled Low risk while information is missing.

How this score was calculated

  • Financial crime controls: information unavailable — 0% of this score
  • Government effectiveness and rule of law: 7.9/10 — 60% of this score
  • International sanctions: 6.4/10 — 40% of this score
  • Financial crime controls information is unavailable.
  • FATF grey-list status sets a minimum of 6.0, but the calculated score was already higher.
  • sector-wide international sanctions sets a minimum of 6.0, but the calculated score was already higher.
Show the exact calculation

governance 7.9 × 60% + sanctions 6.4 × 40% = 7.3; fatf-grey floor 6 non-binding, sanctions-sectoral floor 6 non-binding; final 7.3

Principal risk drivers

  • FATF increased-monitoring status
  • Sectoral sanctions exposure
  • Corruption (WGI) — 9.4/10
  • Rule of law & institutions — 8.1/10
  • Voice & accountability — 7.6/10

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): Additional ownership and control verification may be required.
  • Payments and transactions (Enhanced): Review transaction purpose, counterparties and geographic 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): 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: Grey list

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

Sanctions: Sectoral

  • EU — sectoral: Restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan (source)
  • OFAC — targeted: South Sudan-Related Sanctions (source)
  • UK — sectoral: South Sudan sanctions (source)
  • UN — sectoral: 2206 South Sudan sanctions (source)

Source details

International sanctions by issuing body

  • UN: Yes (Sectoral)
  • EU: Yes (Sectoral)
  • UK: Yes (Sectoral)
  • 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: 9/100
  • Regulatory Quality: 24/100
  • Rule of Law: 23/100

Regulators and legal framework

FATF network

FATF network via ESAAMLG.

National regulators

Regulator profiles not yet available on RegActions.

FIU: Not an Egmont Group member

Framework signals

  • FATF listing: Grey list
  • International sanctions: sectoral exposure
  • Corruption (CPI 2025): 9/100, rank #181 of 182
  • Rule of law (WGI): 8.1/10 risk

Sector exposure

  • Banking & payments (Elevated): FATF grey-list status elevates correspondent-banking risk
  • Trade & export controls (High): Sectoral sanctions: Restrictive measures in view of the situation in South Sudan
  • Crypto & virtual assets (Elevated): FATF grey-list VASP supervision gaps raise virtual-asset risk
  • Real estate & luxury assets (High): Severe corruption exposure (CPI 9/100) drives laundering risk
  • State-linked & procurement (High): High state-capture risk (corruption WGI 9.4/10)

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

South Sudan: analysis

South Sudan combines an extremely weak governance profile with current FATF grey listing. Corruption (weighted 35%) and rule of law (weighted 40%) are the dominant contributors. Voice and accountability (severe) and political stability (elevated) are also severely elevated. FATF grey-list status as at June 2026 reflects identified strategic AML/CFT deficiencies. South Sudan carries no sanctions. The CPI reading confirms the most extreme corruption environment in the dataset.

Outlook

South Sudan's very high risk profile is driven by structural state fragility, near-absent institutional capacity, and FATF grey-list status. Exit from the FATF grey list would require demonstrable and sustained progress on AML/CFT technical compliance and effectiveness, which is a long-term undertaking given the structural conditions. Firms should treat South Sudan as requiring the most stringent enhanced due diligence and should monitor FATF plenary outcomes closely.

Key watchpoints

  • Track FATF plenary decisions on South Sudan's grey-list status at each review cycle.
  • Apply the most stringent enhanced due diligence to all transactions and relationships with a South Sudan nexus.
  • Monitor anti-corruption and rule-of-law developments, the two most critical governance deficiencies.
  • Assess political stability dynamics, which directly affect the viability of any institutional reform programme.

Assessment currency

  • FATF status: Increased monitoring (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): 9/100 (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: ESAAMLG (present, 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 2026-07-17)
  • Transparency International CPI: 9/100, rank 181 (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
  • World Bank governance indicators: current; data 2024
  • UN, UK, EU and US sanctions regimes: current; data 2026-08-13

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

Download evidence PDF · CSV · JSON

Regional peer scores

FAQ

Is South Sudan on the FATF grey list?

Yes. As of the 19 Jun 2026 FATF plenary, South Sudan is on the FATF grey list (Jurisdictions Under Increased Monitoring). This is one AML indicator and does not by itself set South Sudan's overall country risk rating. The next FATF plenary review is scheduled for Oct 2026.

Is South Sudan subject to sanctions?

Partly. South Sudan has sectoral sanctions exposure rather than a comprehensive country-wide programme. Firms should screen applicable persons, entities and sectors against the OFAC, UK, EU and UN lists.

What is South Sudan's country risk rating?

RegActions rates South Sudan at 7.3/10 (Very high risk), where a higher score means higher country risk. The score combines financial crime controls, government effectiveness and rule of law, and international sanctions. Some information is unavailable, so the available parts are rebalanced and the country will not be labelled Low risk while information is missing. Transparency International's 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index scores South Sudan 9/100 (rank #181 of 182).

What due diligence applies to South Sudan?

Enhanced due diligence. This is decision-support based on South Sudan's FATF grey list status, governance and sanctions signals, and is not a substitute for a firm's own risk assessment.

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)