Skip to main content
FinCrime Institute
Category: Money Laundering Typologies

Alternative Remittance System

Also known as: ARS, Informal Value Transfer System, IVTS, Informal banking arrangement, Alternative remittance channel
Simply put

An alternative remittance system is a way of moving money from one place to another that operates outside the conventional, regulated banking network, often relying on trust and informal arrangements to settle transfers. Some of these systems have existed for hundreds of years and predate modern banking. Because they sit outside traditional banking channels, they may attract scrutiny in an anti-money laundering context, though their use is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing.

Formal definition

An Alternative Remittance System (ARS) refers to non-bank financial channels and mechanisms used to transfer money or value outside conventional remittance and banking systems. The Financial Action Task Force uses the term to describe informal banking arrangements, such as hawala and similar networks, that also fall within the broader concept of Informal Value Transfer Systems (IVTS). These systems typically settle obligations through trust-based relationships and networks rather than through the regulated interbank infrastructure, which can present challenges for transaction transparency and record-keeping. Whether and how an ARS is regulated, licensed, or brought within AML/CFT obligations depends on the applicable jurisdiction and regulatory regime; specific requirements should be confirmed against the relevant local law and supervisory guidance.

Why it matters

Alternative remittance systems matter to financial crime professionals because they move value outside the conventional, regulated banking network, which can limit the transaction transparency and record-keeping that AML/CFT controls typically depend on. Where transfers settle through trust-based relationships and informal networks rather than the regulated interbank infrastructure, the audit trail that investigators and supervisors rely on may be incomplete or absent, making it harder to trace the origin, movement, and beneficiaries of funds.

At the same time, it is important to keep the compliance perspective distinct from any criminal-law conclusion. Many alternative remittance systems, such as hawala and similar networks, have operated for hundreds of years and predate modern banking, and they serve legitimate purposes for large numbers of users. The Financial Action Task Force uses the term to describe these informal banking arrangements, but the use of an ARS is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing. Treating an ARS as inherently suspicious risks conflating a channel with a crime.

For obliged entities and supervisors, the practical significance lies in how these systems are treated under the applicable regime. Whether and how an ARS is regulated, licensed, or brought within AML/CFT obligations depends on the jurisdiction, and requirements diverge across regimes. Compliance teams should assess exposure to such channels as part of a risk-based approach rather than applying a single global assumption, and should confirm specific obligations against the relevant local law and supervisory guidance.

Who it's relevant to

Compliance officers at obliged entities
Compliance teams need to understand alternative remittance systems to assess whether their institution has direct or indirect exposure to such channels and to calibrate risk-based controls accordingly. Because the extent to which an ARS falls within AML/CFT obligations depends on the jurisdiction, officers should confirm applicable licensing, record-keeping, and reporting requirements against local law and supervisory guidance rather than assuming a uniform standard.
Financial intelligence analysts and investigators
Analysts and investigators encounter alternative remittance systems where trust-based, informal settlement can limit the transaction trail available for tracing funds. Understanding how these systems settle obligations outside the regulated interbank infrastructure helps in interpreting available information, while recognizing that the presence of an ARS is not by itself proof of criminal activity.
Regulators and supervisors
Supervisory bodies are concerned with whether and how alternative remittance systems are licensed or brought within AML/CFT frameworks in their jurisdiction. As the Financial Action Task Force sets standards rather than binding law, the actual treatment of informal banking arrangements such as hawala varies by regime and depends on how each jurisdiction implements its supervisory approach.
Legal and risk professionals
Legal and risk advisers must distinguish the compliance treatment of alternative remittance systems from any criminal-law characterization. Advising clients requires attention to how the applicable jurisdiction regulates these channels and to the fact that lawful, long-established use of an ARS should not be equated with wrongdoing.

Inside ARS

Value Transfer Without Physical Movement
Alternative remittance systems (ARS) transfer value from one location to another without the corresponding physical movement of cash or use of the formal banking system, typically settling obligations between operators through offsetting balances, trade, or later settlement rather than wire transfers.
Trust and Informal Networks
Many ARS rely on networks of operators connected by trust, family, ethnic, or regional ties, where instructions may be transmitted informally and reconciliation occurs periodically rather than transaction-by-transaction.
Known Regional Variants
Common forms include hawala and hundi (associated with South Asia and the Middle East), fei ch'ien or feiqian (associated with China), and similar systems elsewhere. Terminology and mechanics vary, and these should be understood as descriptive categories rather than a single uniform model.
Overlap with Money or Value Transfer Services (MVTS)
In the FATF framework, ARS generally fall within the broader concept of money or value transfer services. Whether a given operator is licensed, registered, or unregistered depends on the applicable jurisdiction's regime, and legal treatment varies significantly across countries.
Legitimate and Illicit Uses
ARS are widely used for lawful purposes such as remittances to regions with limited formal banking access. The same features that make them efficient, speed, low cost, and limited documentation, may also be exploited for money laundering or terrorist financing, though use of an ARS is not itself evidence of wrongdoing.
Record-Keeping and Transparency Considerations
ARS transactions may involve reduced documentation and limited audit trails compared with formal banking channels, which can complicate customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and reconstruction of fund flows.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about ARS.

Is an alternative remittance system illegal or inherently a money laundering operation?
No. Alternative remittance systems, which include hawala, hundi, fei ch'ien, and similar value-transfer arrangements, are not inherently illegal, and using one is not evidence of money laundering. In many jurisdictions these systems provide legitimate remittance services, particularly where formal banking access is limited. Their legal status depends on the applicable regime: some jurisdictions require such providers to register or be licensed as money or value transfer services (MVTS), and operating without required authorization may itself be an offense. The vulnerability to abuse arises from features such as limited recordkeeping and settlement outside the formal banking system, not from any presumption of criminal intent. A connection to an alternative remittance system should be assessed on a risk basis and does not establish wrongdoing.
Are alternative remittance systems the same thing as unregulated or informal channels that fall outside AML obligations?
Not necessarily. The term 'informal' describes how these systems operate relative to conventional banking, but it does not mean they sit outside regulatory scope. Under the FATF standards, money or value transfer services are expected to be licensed or registered and subject to AML/CFT obligations regardless of whether they operate through formal or informal channels. Many jurisdictions have transposed this expectation into national law, for example through MVTS registration requirements. Whether a given operator is in scope, and what obligations attach, depends on the applicable regime and how that jurisdiction defines and captures MVTS activity. The precise treatment should be confirmed against the relevant local regulation.
How should an obliged entity treat a customer that is, or transacts with, an alternative remittance provider?
Where permitted to serve such a customer, an obliged entity would typically apply customer due diligence proportionate to the assessed risk, which for many MVTS relationships may warrant enhanced due diligence. This generally includes verifying the provider's registration or licensing status where such a requirement exists in the relevant jurisdiction, understanding the nature and volume of its business, and considering the geographies it services. These measures are intended to help detect, deter, and manage risk; they do not guarantee prevention. Scope and specific expectations vary by regime and should be confirmed against applicable rules and any regulator guidance.
What recordkeeping and information challenges arise when investigating transactions routed through alternative remittance systems?
A common operational challenge is that settlement may occur outside the formal banking system and that recordkeeping practices can vary, which may limit the transaction trail available to investigators and to institutions conducting due diligence. Where a regulated MVTS is involved, recordkeeping and information-on-the-payer/payee obligations may apply depending on the jurisdiction, but arrangements that operate outside registration may leave gaps. Analysts should treat identified gaps as factors to be assessed on a risk basis rather than as conclusive indicators, and should document the basis for any conclusions reached.
Should exposure to an alternative remittance system trigger a suspicious activity report or suspicious transaction report?
Exposure alone does not, by itself, create a reporting obligation. Reporting duties in most regimes are triggered by knowledge or suspicion of money laundering, terrorist financing, or related predicate conduct, assessed against the facts and the applicable legal threshold, which differs between a SAR regime and an STR regime and across jurisdictions. If, after considering the surrounding circumstances, staff form the requisite suspicion, a report should be filed in accordance with the relevant rules. The decision should reflect the specific indicators observed, not the mere presence of an alternative remittance channel.
How can a compliance program identify potential use of alternative remittance systems within its transaction data?
Programs commonly rely on a combination of customer profiling, transaction monitoring, and analysis of settlement and counterparty patterns to surface activity that may be consistent with alternative remittance flows, such as offsetting or netting arrangements or transactions inconsistent with a customer's stated profile. Such indicators are illustrative rather than exhaustive and are not proof of any particular activity. Any monitoring approach should be calibrated to the institution's risk assessment, and alerts warrant investigation and documentation before conclusions are drawn. These measures manage risk but do not eliminate it.

Common misconceptions

Alternative remittance systems are inherently illegal.
ARS are not universally illegal. Their legal status depends on the jurisdiction: in many countries operators must be registered or licensed as money or value transfer services under the applicable regime, while operating without required registration may be an offence. Legitimate use for lawful remittances is widespread, and the existence of an ARS transaction does not by itself establish criminal conduct.
Hawala, hundi, fei ch'ien and similar terms all refer to the same identical system.
These are distinct regional variants associated with different geographies and communities, and their mechanics, settlement practices, and terminology differ. They are best treated as related descriptive categories within the broader ARS or MVTS concept rather than interchangeable labels for a single standardized system.
There is a single global rule governing alternative remittance systems.
No single binding global rule exists. The FATF Recommendations set standards for money or value transfer services (which are standards, not law), while specific obligations flow from national implementations that diverge, for example, registration and supervision requirements differ across jurisdictions. Applicable requirements should be confirmed against the relevant local regime.

Best practices

Determine whether a given operator falls within the money or value transfer services (MVTS) definition under the applicable jurisdiction and confirm the specific registration, licensing, and supervisory obligations against the relevant local regulation rather than assuming a uniform standard.
Apply a risk-based approach when dealing with ARS-related activity, using enhanced due diligence where risk indicators are present, while recognizing that legitimate remittance use is common and does not by itself indicate wrongdoing.
Strengthen transaction monitoring and record-keeping to address the reduced documentation and limited audit trails that can accompany ARS transactions, so that fund flows can be reviewed and reconstructed where necessary.
Train staff to recognize the distinct regional variants (such as hawala, hundi, and fei ch'ien) and to treat associated typologies and red flags as indicators for further review, not as proof of criminal activity.
Escalate and, where obligations are triggered, file suspicious activity or suspicious transaction reports in accordance with the applicable jurisdiction's requirements, remembering that a filing reflects suspicion and does not establish that an offence has occurred.
Document the rationale for risk decisions and control measures, and treat these controls as means to detect, deter, and mitigate financial crime risk rather than as guarantees that misuse has been prevented.