Full Analysis Summary
Basel AML Index 2025
The Basel AML Index 2025, compiled by the Basel Institute on Governance, ranks Finland as the world’s lowest-risk country for money laundering and Myanmar as the highest-risk.
The index measures countries' exposure to money laundering using multiple governance and enforcement indicators reported by global watchdogs.
The available reports highlight the contrasting top and bottom positions in the 2025 ranking.
Coverage Differences
Emphasis/Tone
Scandasia frames the result with institutional analysis—emphasizing methodology and reasons for Finland’s and Myanmar’s placements—whereas AML Intelligence focuses its coverage on the headline ranking for high-risk jurisdictions (naming Myanmar, Haiti and the DRC) and attributes the story to a reporter. The difference reflects Scandasia’s explanatory tone versus AML Intelligence’s brief news-reporting style.
Finland ranking explained
Scandasia provides context for Finland's top placement, attributing it to strong institutions, low perceived corruption, and strict financial-sector supervision—a pattern it notes is common across Nordic countries.
The source links Finland's rank to governance indicators and supervisory strength rather than one-off policy moves, presenting the result as evidence of structural resilience against illicit financial flows.
Coverage Differences
Missed information / Omission
AML Intelligence does not mention Finland’s placement or the Nordic-pattern explanation found in Scandasia; instead, it emphasizes which countries are highest-risk. This omission results in different focal points: Scandasia explains why a low-risk rating was achieved, while AML Intelligence highlights headline high-risk jurisdictions.
Myanmar risk assessments
Both sources emphasize Myanmar's position at the top of the risk list, but Scandasia links that ranking to political instability, international sanctions, weak governance and conflict, which increase illicit financial-flow risk.
AML Intelligence agrees on Myanmar's ranking and adds other high-risk jurisdictions (Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo), but it does not provide the same governance-detail explanation found in Scandasia.
Coverage Differences
Narrative detail
Scandasia supplies causal detail for Myanmar’s high-risk ranking—naming instability, sanctions, governance failures and conflict—whereas AML Intelligence reports the ranking and adds other high-risk countries (Haiti, DRC) without the same explanatory list of drivers. The two sources therefore complement each other (one explains drivers; the other extends the list of high-risk jurisdictions).
AML report jurisdiction risks
AML Intelligence’s short report adds a factual element absent from the Scandasia snippet.
It lists Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo as the second- and third-highest risk jurisdictions and names the reporter as Paul O’Donoghue.
This extension broadens the set of jurisdictions flagged by the Basel AML Index 2025 in the available coverage.
However, it does not include the governance-based explanations provided by Scandasia.
Coverage Differences
Unique/off-topic coverage
AML Intelligence uniquely includes the placement of Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo and explicitly notes the reporter, a detail absent from the Scandasia excerpt. Scandasia, by contrast, focuses on explaining rankings through governance indicators and national characteristics rather than listing more high-risk countries or naming reporters.
Basel AML Index overview
Taken together, the two available reports provide a consistent headline that the Basel AML Index 2025 ranks Finland at low risk and Myanmar at high risk.
They offer complementary details, with Scandasia explaining governance drivers behind the scores and AML Intelligence naming additional high-risk countries and noting the reporting credit.
However, coverage is limited to two snippets, so the full index, scoring methodology, and complete country list are not provided and verification against the Basel Institute's full report is needed to confirm the rankings and methods.
Coverage Differences
Ambiguity / Limitation
Both sources align on the headline contrast but differ in depth: Scandasia gives causal governance-driven explanations; AML Intelligence broadens the list of high-risk countries and credits a reporter. Crucially, neither snippet contains the full index table or exhaustive methodology, so important details remain unreported in the available coverage.