Skip to main content
FinCrime Institute
Category: International Bodies and Standards

Bank for International Settlements

Also known as: BIS, BIS, the central banks' bank
Simply put

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an international financial institution owned by its member central banks. Its stated mission is to support central banks in pursuing monetary and financial stability through international cooperation, and it also acts as a bank for central banks. Founded in 1930, it is generally described as the oldest international organization in the field of international monetary cooperation.

Formal definition

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an international financial institution, founded in 1930 and owned by its members' central banks, whose mission is to support central banks' pursuit of monetary and financial stability through international cooperation and to act as a bank for central banks. The BIS hosts standard-setting and cooperative bodies and produces global statistical content and terminology, including the glossary maintained by the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI). Its outputs and hosted committees inform international standards and practice; however, the BIS is not itself a national regulator, and the binding legal force of any related standards depends on their adoption within individual jurisdictions.

Why it matters

The Bank for International Settlements occupies a distinctive position in the international financial architecture as an institution owned by its member central banks and dedicated to supporting monetary and financial stability through international cooperation. Founded in 1930, it is generally described as the oldest international organization in the field of international monetary cooperation. For financial crime and compliance professionals, its significance is indirect but meaningful: the BIS hosts standard-setting and cooperative bodies and produces global statistical content and terminology that inform how the international community frames payments, market infrastructures, and financial stability.

The BIS matters to AML and financial crime practitioners chiefly because of the committees it hosts and the reference material it maintains, rather than because it exercises supervisory authority over obliged entities. It is not itself a national regulator, and it does not issue binding obligations on banks or other regulated firms. Instead, its outputs and hosted committees inform international standards and practice, the binding legal force of which depends on adoption within individual jurisdictions. Compliance teams should therefore treat BIS-associated material as authoritative reference and standards input, not as directly enforceable regulation.

One practical touchpoint is the glossary maintained by the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), which the BIS hosts. This provides widely used terminology for payments and market infrastructure concepts that can arise in transaction monitoring, correspondent banking analysis, and the interpretation of settlement flows. Because terminology and its legal weight can vary by jurisdiction, practitioners should confirm how any BIS-originated concept or standard has been implemented in the applicable local framework before relying on it operationally.

Who it's relevant to

Compliance officers and AML program leads
Those designing and maintaining compliance frameworks may draw on BIS-hosted terminology, such as the CPMI glossary, and on international standards that BIS-hosted bodies help shape. Because the BIS is not a regulator and its standards are only binding where adopted locally, program leads should confirm how any relevant concept has been implemented in their applicable jurisdiction before treating it as an obligation.
Financial intelligence analysts and investigators
Analysts examining payments flows, settlement activity, and correspondent banking relationships may benefit from the standardized payments and market infrastructure terminology maintained through the CPMI glossary, as well as from the global statistical content available through the BIS data portal. These serve as reference material rather than as evidence of wrongdoing in any specific case.
Central bank and regulatory staff
As an institution owned by its member central banks, the BIS is directly relevant to central bank personnel and supervisory authorities who participate in its cooperative and standard-setting bodies. These stakeholders are typically involved in translating internationally developed standards into domestic frameworks.
Legal, risk, and policy professionals
Professionals interpreting the source and legal weight of international standards should note that the BIS produces and hosts influential outputs but does not itself impose binding obligations. The enforceability of any related standard depends on its adoption within a given jurisdiction, a distinction that matters when assessing regulatory expectations and drafting internal policy.

Inside BIS

International Organization of Central Banks
The BIS is an international financial institution owned by member central banks, established to foster cooperation among central banks and other agencies in pursuit of monetary and financial stability. It serves as a forum for dialogue rather than a supervisory or law-enforcement body.
Host of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS)
The BIS provides the secretariat and hosts the BCBS, which develops supervisory standards and guidance for banks. Relevant to AML, the BCBS has issued guidance on sound management of risks related to money laundering and terrorist financing, though such guidance constitutes non-binding standards that member authorities may implement through their own legal frameworks.
Banking Services to Central Banks and International Organizations
The BIS acts as a bank for central banks and certain international institutions, facilitating financial transactions and reserve management. It does not provide services to private individuals or commercial (non-central-bank) entities.
Research and Standard-Setting Support
The BIS produces economic and financial research and supports the work of standard-setting bodies it hosts. Its outputs inform policy but do not themselves create binding legal obligations on obliged entities.
Distinction from FATF and Binding Regimes
The BIS and the BCBS it hosts are separate from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which issues the international AML/CFT Recommendations. Neither the BIS nor FATF enacts binding law; AML obligations for firms flow from national and regional instruments such as the US Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN rules, the EU AML Directives and AML Regulation, and the UK Money Laundering Regulations and Proceeds of Crime Act.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about BIS.

Does the Bank for International Settlements set legally binding AML rules for banks?
No. The BIS itself is not an AML rulemaking authority whose pronouncements bind individual banks. It serves as a bank for central banks and hosts standard-setting bodies, most notably the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). Standards and guidance emerging from the Basel Committee are influential and often shape national supervisory expectations, but they are not law in themselves. They take legal effect only when transposed into national or regional frameworks by the relevant legislatures and regulators. Compliance obligations for a given institution flow from the applicable domestic regime, not directly from the BIS.
Is the BIS the same body as the FATF, or does it issue the global AML standards?
No. The BIS and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) are distinct organisations with different mandates. The FATF sets the internationally recognised standards for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism through its Recommendations, which are themselves standards rather than binding law. The BIS, through the Basel Committee, focuses primarily on prudential banking supervision and financial stability, and its guidance on sound management of money laundering and terrorist financing risks is intended to complement, not replace, the FATF framework. The two bodies address related but non-identical concerns.
How should a compliance team treat Basel Committee guidance hosted through the BIS in practice?
Generally, such guidance is best treated as a benchmark for supervisory expectations rather than as a direct source of obligation. Compliance teams typically map the relevant guidance against the requirements actually imposed by their applicable national regime to identify where domestic rules reflect or exceed those expectations. Where the domestic framework has adopted comparable principles, aligning with the guidance can support demonstrating a sound, risk-based approach to supervisors. Teams should confirm the precise legal requirements against the applicable regulation rather than relying on the guidance alone.
Where does BIS-related guidance fit within an institution's AML policy documentation?
In many institutions, guidance associated with the Basel Committee is referenced as part of the policy rationale or as supporting best-practice material, rather than cited as the binding legal basis for a control. The binding basis is typically the applicable domestic instrument, such as the relevant national money laundering regulations or supervisory rules. Documenting the distinction clearly helps ensure that policies attribute each obligation to its correct source instrument and body, which supports both internal clarity and supervisory review.
Should cross-border banking groups rely on BIS-hosted standards to harmonise AML controls across jurisdictions?
Cross-border groups often use Basel Committee principles as a common reference point to promote consistency in group-wide risk management, but reliance on them does not remove the need to satisfy each jurisdiction's specific requirements. Because national and regional regimes diverge on matters such as customer due diligence expectations, thresholds, and reporting obligations, a harmonised group standard generally has to be set at or above the strictest applicable local requirement, with local variations addressed separately. Group policy should reflect these differences rather than assume a single global rule applies.
How can a compliance officer keep track of relevant material published through the BIS?
Practitioners commonly monitor publications from the Basel Committee and other BIS-hosted bodies alongside the outputs of the FATF and their own national supervisor, treating each as a separate stream with a different status. When new guidance appears, a typical approach is to assess whether it signals evolving supervisory expectations, then check whether and how the domestic regulator has adopted or intends to adopt it before adjusting controls. As with all such material, its status as guidance, regulation, or best practice should be identified explicitly, and exact requirements confirmed against the applicable law.

Common misconceptions

The BIS sets binding anti-money laundering rules that firms must follow directly.
The BIS is not a legislative or supervisory authority over obliged entities. Through the Basel Committee it hosts, it contributes non-binding supervisory guidance and standards. Enforceable AML obligations for financial institutions derive from national and regional law, not from the BIS itself.
The BIS and FATF are the same body or perform the same function.
They are distinct organizations. The BIS is an organization of central banks that hosts the Basel Committee on banking supervision, while FATF is the intergovernmental body that issues the international AML/CFT standards. Their roles, membership, and outputs differ, and neither issues binding law.
The BIS provides banking services broadly and could be used to move funds like a commercial bank.
The BIS provides banking services primarily to central banks and certain international organizations, not to private individuals or ordinary commercial customers. It is not a retail or commercial bank.

Best practices

Treat Basel Committee guidance hosted by the BIS as authoritative supervisory standards to inform your framework, but map your actual obligations to the specific binding instruments in your jurisdiction, such as the BSA and FinCEN rules, the EU AML regime, or the UK Money Laundering Regulations.
Clearly distinguish in policy documentation between BIS/BCBS standards and FATF Recommendations, and between both of those and enforceable national law, to avoid attributing obligations to the wrong source.
When referencing 'international standards' in risk assessments or procedures, specify whether you mean BCBS supervisory guidance, FATF Recommendations, or a binding domestic requirement, since these carry different legal weight.
Monitor updates to Basel Committee guidance on the sound management of money laundering and terrorist financing risks, and assess whether your national supervisor has transposed or referenced them before adjusting controls.
Confirm any specific requirement, threshold, or expectation against the applicable regulation or supervisory rulebook rather than relying on BIS or BCBS materials as a direct legal basis.
Avoid presenting BIS-hosted standards as guaranteeing prevention of financial crime; frame them as measures that support the detection, deterrence, and management of money laundering and terrorist financing risk.