Fincrime Compliance Audits Reveal Rising Risks as Firms Struggle to Prove Control Effectiveness
By Lauren Towner · 21 October 2026
In brief: fscom's 2026 Fincrime Compliance Report reveals that audit findings have risen to 4.65 per audit as firms struggle to prove the effectiveness of their financial crime controls while scaling.
| Audit Count | 104 AML/CTF/AFC audits |
|---|---|
| Average Findings | 4.65 per audit |
| High-Impact Findings | 1.14 per audit |
| Jurisdictions Covered | UK and 16 other jurisdictions |

Regulated fintechs are struggling to prove the effectiveness of financial crime controls as they scale, according to fscom’s 2026 fincrime compliance report. With audit findings increasing in both frequency and severity, the data suggests that established frameworks are failing to keep pace with jurisdictional expansion and technological complexity, creating significant regulatory risk for growing firms.
What was announced
The 2026 fincrime compliance report marks the tenth anniversary of the study by compliance maturity specialists fscom. The findings are based on 104 anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing (CTF), and anti-financial crime (AFC) audits conducted between July 2025 and June 2026. This represents a significant increase from the 73 audits analyzed the previous year. The scope included e-money and payment institutions, merchant acquirers, investment and FX firms, cryptoasset firms, and money service businesses across the UK and 16 other jurisdictions.
The report identified 484 total findings, with the average number of findings per audit rising from 4.26 to 4.65. High-impact findings also saw an uptick, increasing from 1.01 to 1.14. A primary concern highlighted is the Whole Firm Risk Assessment (WFRA), which generated 64 findings; 20 of these related to firms treating the assessment as a static, annual exercise rather than a dynamic document that evolves with the firm's risk profile.
Operational failures were also prominent. Sixteen findings involved screening tool calibration—including systems failing to identify known sanctions matches—while 14 findings revealed compliance monitoring programs that failed to independently verify automated systems. Additionally, 15 findings addressed AML training assessments that allowed unlimited attempts, undermining the ability to prove genuine staff understanding. Multi-jurisdictional groups faced specific challenges, with recurring issues in periodic customer review backlogs and centrally set transaction monitoring rules that were not sufficiently tailored to individual entity risks.
"Most of the firms we audit have established financial crime frameworks in place. The next stage of maturity is being able to demonstrate that those controls continue to work effectively in practice."
Nicola Hanratty, UK Payments Specialist at fscom
The companies involved
fscom is a specialist consulting firm focused on compliance and regulatory requirements for the financial services sector. Based in the UK and Ireland, the company provides audit, advisory, and outsourced compliance services to a broad spectrum of fintechs, including payment service providers and cryptoasset firms. The firm is currently owned by Bridgepoint, a major private equity group, which acquired the business to support its international growth and service expansion.
The leadership team includes Co-Founder and Executive Director Philip Creed, alongside specialists like Nicola Hanratty and Stuart Smith, who focus on the UK and EU payment landscapes respectively. fscom has positioned itself as a key intermediary between regulated firms and supervisors, particularly as the UK and EU regulatory environments diverge and become more stringent. By focusing on compliance maturity, the firm aims to move clients beyond basic regulatory adherence toward robust, scalable operating models. This approach is particularly relevant for the diverse range of institutions—from merchant acquirers to FX firms—that now fall under the scrutiny of financial crime regulators across multiple jurisdictions.
What FF News has reported before
FF News has closely followed fscom’s growth and its insights into the evolving regulatory landscape. Recently, we covered how the fscom 10th Anniversary Report: Proving Control Effectiveness is the New Frontier in Financial Crime Compliance highlights the shift from design to operational proof. The firm has also been active in leadership changes, as seen when fscom Appoints Former PwC Partner Lynne Rainey as Executive Chair to Lead Strategic Growth. Earlier this year, we reported on the company’s technological expansion through the fscom Strengthens Compliance Offering with the Integration of ComplianceGuard. Furthermore, fscom’s data previously warned of industry-wide gaps, noting that 78% of Financial Firms Still Unprepared for New UK Payment Safeguarding Rules.
What this means
The rise in high-impact audit findings suggests that the "honeymoon period" for fintech compliance is over. Regulators are no longer satisfied with the existence of a policy; they demand proof of its performance. This puts immense pressure on mid-tier firms that have scaled rapidly but neglected to update their legacy screening and monitoring tools. The trend toward multi-jurisdictional findings also indicates that "copy-paste" compliance models are failing. Firms must now decide whether to invest heavily in bespoke local monitoring or risk group-wide contagion when a single entity fails an audit. The sector is moving toward a zero-tolerance environment for automated systems that lack independent oversight.
Frequently asked questions
What are the main findings of the fscom 2026 Fincrime Compliance Report?
The report found that average findings per audit rose from 4.26 to 4.65, with high-impact findings increasing to 1.14. The primary challenge for firms is no longer just establishing financial crime frameworks, but demonstrating that these controls remain effective as the business scales and technology becomes more complex.
Why are automated screening tools failing in financial crime audits?
Audits identified 16 findings where screening tools failed to return known PEP or sanctions matches due to poor calibration. Additionally, 14 findings showed that compliance monitoring programs were not independently checking if automated systems were operating as intended, leading to significant regulatory risk.
How should firms improve their Whole Firm Risk Assessments (WFRA)?
Firms should move away from treating the WFRA as a static, annual exercise. The fscom report identified 64 findings in this area, with the most common issue being firms failing to update their risk assessments as their risk profile changed throughout the year.
About the companies
fscom
Part of Bridgepoint · Website · 16 stories and 7 video interviews on FF News since 2019
Previously on FF News:
- fscom 10th Anniversary Report: Proving Control Effectiveness is the New Frontier in Financial Crime Compliance 9 October 2026
- fscom Appoints Former PwC Partner Lynne Rainey as Executive Chair to Lead Strategic Growth 5 October 2026
- fscom Strengthens Compliance Offering with the Integration of ComplianceGuard 17 May 2026
Companies in this story: fscom
People in this story: Nicola Hanratty, Stuart Smith, Philip Creed