Zimbabwe — Country Risk Report

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

High country risk, with elevated corruption risk. Zimbabwe's country risk score is 6.7/10, placing it in the high-risk band. The principal driver is weak corruption, alongside rule of law and institutions risk. Zimbabwe is not currently FATF grey- or black-listed. Zimbabwe 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: 6.5/10
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 22/100, rank #157 of 182
• Enforcement data: not yet assessed (no RegActions coverage)

Country Risk Score: 6.7/10 (High)

Higher score means higher country risk (global average 4.6). Full information available. Limited supporting information. 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: 7.2/10 — 50% of this score
• Government effectiveness and rule of law: 6.5/10 — 30% of this score
• International sanctions: 5.7/10 — 20% of this score
• The FATF assessment is more than eight years old.
• sector-wide international sanctions sets a minimum of 6.0, but the calculated score was already higher.

Principal risk drivers

• Sectoral sanctions exposure
• Corruption (WGI) — 7.7/10
• Rule of law & institutions — 6.5/10
• Voice & accountability — 6.5/10
• Political stability — 5.1/10

Mitigating factors

• Not currently on the FATF grey or black list.
• No comprehensive country-wide sanctions programme.
• 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

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

Sanctions: Sectoral

• EU — sectoral: Restrictive measures concerning an arms embargo in view of the situation in Zimbabwe (source)
• UK — sectoral: Zimbabwe sanctions (source)

Source details

International sanctions by issuing body

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

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: 32/100
• Regulatory Quality: 36/100
• Rule of Law: 36/100

Regulators and legal framework

FATF network

FATF network via ESAAMLG.

• Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group

Last mutual evaluation: 2017 · report

National regulators

Regulator profiles not yet available on RegActions.

FIU: Egmont Group member (FIU-Zimbabwe)

Framework signals

• FATF listing: Not currently listed
• International sanctions: sectoral exposure
• Corruption (CPI 2025): 22/100, rank #157 of 182
• Rule of law (WGI): 6.5/10 risk

Sector exposure

• Banking & payments (Elevated): Weak rule-of-law governance (WGI 6.5/10 risk)
• Trade & export controls (High): Sectoral sanctions: Restrictive measures concerning an arms embargo in view of the situation in Zimbabwe
• Crypto & virtual assets (Elevated): Weak accountability governance (WGI 6.5/10 risk)
• Real estate & luxury assets (High): Severe corruption exposure (CPI 22/100) drives laundering risk
• State-linked & procurement (High): High state-capture risk (corruption WGI 7.7/10)

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

Zimbabwe: analysis

Zimbabwe's profile is among the weakest in this batch and is driven entirely by its governance indicators; it is not on the FATF grey or black list and no sanctions apply. The two most critical domains are corruption (weighted 35%) and rule of law and institutions (weighted 40%), which together carry 75% of the weighting and are both severely elevated. Voice and accountability (weighted 10%) adds further weight. Political stability (weighted 15%) is the least adverse domain. The CPI reading is among the weakest globally and provides independent corroboration of the assessment.

Outlook

Zimbabwe's risk profile is unlikely to improve materially in the short to medium term given the depth and breadth of governance deficiencies. Meaningful progress would require sustained institutional reform across the judiciary, anti-corruption bodies and the financial sector regulatory framework. Firms should apply enhanced due diligence to Zimbabwean exposures and remain alert to any FATF listing decision at the October 2026 plenary, which would materially raise scrutiny.

Key watchpoints

• October 2026 FATF plenary for any grey-listing determination, which would materially raise scrutiny of Zimbabwe-connected business.
• WGI annual revisions to corruption and rule of law, which are the two largest risk drivers.
• Developments in Zimbabwe's financial sector regulatory framework and AML/CFT compliance capacity.
• Any introduction of targeted or sectoral sanctions by major jurisdictions, which would further raise the risk profile.

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): 22/100 (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: 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: FIU-Zimbabwe (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: 22/100, rank 157 (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 2024-04; base assessment 2017-01
• 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

• Central African Republic: 7.8/10 (Very high)
• Democratic Republic of the Congo: 7.6/10 (Very high)
• Somalia: 7.3/10 (Very high)
• South Sudan: 7.3/10 (Very high)
• Sudan: 7.1/10 (Very high)
• Eritrea: 6.9/10 (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)