The FATF plenary of 17 to 19 June 2026 added Iraq and Bosnia and Herzegovina to the list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring and removed Algeria and Namibia, leaving 22 jurisdictions listed. It also updated Recommendation 6 to protect humanitarian flows, adopted two mutual evaluations, and closed the Mexican presidency.
Key takeaways
- Two jurisdictions joined the grey list and two left, so the list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring stood at 22 after 19 June 2026.
- Bulgaria received an initial determination that it has substantially completed its action plan and warrants an on-site assessment, the step that normally precedes removal.
- Recommendation 6 was amended so that targeted financial sanctions do not block humanitarian assistance, aligning the standard with the humanitarian exemption in United Nations Security Council resolutions.
- The call for action list was unchanged, with countermeasures reiterated for Iran and the DPRK and a warning that Myanmar could face countermeasures if there is no further progress by October 2026.
- The United Kingdom assumed the FATF presidency from 1 July 2026, with Giles Thompson as President and Vivek Aggarwal of India as Vice-President.
What did the June 2026 plenary decide?
Delegates from the FATF Global Network, which spans more than 200 jurisdictions, met in Paris from 17 to 19 June 2026 for the sixth and final plenary under the Mexican presidency. The outcomes statement covers listing decisions, one change to the standards, two mutual evaluations and a set of new reports.
Canada and Türkiye had their mutual evaluation reports adopted under the new round of assessments. The plenary also agreed to publish typology work on emerging risks, and the United States Treasury readout records that this included the abuse of online gaming and vulnerabilities in underground banking, alongside reports urging better information sharing with the private sector.
For firms, the practical output is narrower than the agenda. Two country risk ratings changed, one sanctions-related standard changed, and a consultation opened that will eventually change payment message requirements. Everything else is context. Our explainer on what mutual evaluations mean covers how the assessment round works.
Which jurisdictions changed status?
Four, in two directions, plus one that moved a step closer to removal. Additions bring new action plans and new expectations on firms with exposure; removals end FATF monitoring but do not automatically change any national or regional list that referenced it.
| Decision | Jurisdictions | What it means for firms |
|---|---|---|
| Added to increased monitoring | Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina | New action plans agreed; treat as higher-risk jurisdictions in country risk models |
| Removed from increased monitoring | Algeria, Namibia | On-site visits confirmed completed action plans; FATF monitoring ends |
| Initial determination, on-site warranted | Bulgaria | Action plan substantially complete; removal possible at a later plenary |
| Call for action, countermeasures | Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea | Countermeasures reiterated |
| Call for action, enhanced due diligence | Myanmar | Countermeasures to be considered if no further progress by October 2026 |
The removals were earned rather than granted. The statement on increased monitoring records that Algeria and Namibia completed their action plans within the agreed timeframes, and that on-site visits verified implementation had begun and was being sustained.
Who is under increased monitoring after 19 June 2026?
Twenty-two jurisdictions. They are Angola, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Monaco, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, the Virgin Islands (UK) and Yemen.
Grey listing is not a call for enhanced due diligence in itself. The FATF asks members to take the information into account in their risk analysis, and does not call for the application of enhanced due diligence measures across the board for jurisdictions under increased monitoring. That distinction is what separates the two lists.
National lists then diverge from the FATF list, sometimes for months. The EU maintains its own high-risk third country list by delegated regulation, and it updates on its own timetable, so a firm operating in Europe cannot simply mirror the FATF position. Track both, and record which one drove each customer risk rating.
What happened on the call for action list?
Nothing moved, and that is itself the news. The call for action statement of 19 June 2026 keeps Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Myanmar in place, with the same three-way split in the measures requested.
Iran and the DPRK remain subject to countermeasures. The FATF noted that Iran had reported in January, August and December 2024 and in August and November 2025 with no material change in the status of its action plan, and reiterated the call for countermeasures given heightened proliferation financing risks.
Myanmar sits in the lighter category and has a deadline. Members are asked to apply enhanced due diligence proportionate to the risk, which the FATF defines to include increasing the degree and nature of monitoring of the business relationship. The plenary added that it will consider countermeasures if no further progress is made by October 2026.
What changed in Recommendation 6?
The humanitarian carve-out is now inside the standard rather than around it. The plenary updated Recommendation 6, which governs targeted financial sanctions related to terrorism and terrorist financing, so that sanctions measures do not block the flow of funds, assets, resources, goods and services needed for humanitarian assistance and to meet basic human needs.
The change incorporates the humanitarian exemption contained in United Nations Security Council resolutions on terrorism and terrorist financing. It responds to a long-running complaint that de-risking by banks was cutting off aid organisations operating in sanctioned environments.
The consequence for a compliance function is a policy question rather than a screening change. Sanctions lists are unaffected, but a firm that declines humanitarian payments as a category, rather than assessing them, is now further from the standard than it was before June 2026. Screening still has to resolve names and ownership, which is the job of sanctions and PEP screening.
Where does Recommendation 16 stand?
In implementation, with guidance out for comment. The revisions to Recommendation 16 on payment transparency were agreed in June 2025, and they increase clarity on who is sending and receiving money in cross-border payments above USD or EUR 1,000 while streamlining what payment messages must carry.
Countries are expected to be ready to implement by the end of 2030. That is a long runway, but it lands on payment message formats and originator and beneficiary data quality, which are slow things to change.
The June 2026 plenary opened the next stage. The FATF launched a public consultation on draft guidance on 24 June 2026, inviting financial institutions of different sizes, payment system operators, civil society and researchers to comment by Friday 21 August 2026.
What did the plenary agree on virtual assets?
A seventh targeted update, and a new piece of work on decentralised finance. The plenary approved the seventh targeted update on implementation of the FATF standards on virtual assets and virtual asset service providers, continuing the annual series that tracks how far jurisdictions have got with Recommendation 15.
It also agreed a new targeted report examining regulatory challenges around decentralised finance platforms and their potential exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risk. That is a scoping exercise rather than a standards change, so nothing in Recommendation 15 moved in June 2026.
Virtual asset businesses should read the two together. Implementation of the existing travel rule remains the near-term supervisory question, while the DeFi report signals where the next definitional argument will be. Our guide to the FATF travel rule sets out the current obligation.
Who leads the FATF from July 2026?
The United Kingdom, from 1 July 2026. Members approved the priorities of the incoming British presidency, and the Treasury readout names Giles Thompson of the United Kingdom as the next FATF President. Members also approved the nomination of Vivek Aggarwal of India as Vice-President for July 2026 to June 2027.
Presidencies shape the agenda more than the standards. The Mexican presidency's six plenaries produced the Recommendation 16 revision, the Recommendation 6 humanitarian update and the financial inclusion work, and the incoming priorities carry those forward rather than replacing them.
Earlier plenaries in this series are covered in our posts on June 2023, February 2023 and June 2022, which trace how several of the jurisdictions listed above reached their current status.
What should compliance teams do next?
Three things, in order of how quickly they bind. Update country risk ratings for Iraq and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and review whether removing Algeria and Namibia from the FATF list actually changes their rating in your model, given that national lists may still include them.
Second, check what your policy says about humanitarian payments, because the Recommendation 6 change gives supervisors a reference point for challenging blanket refusals. Third, put the Recommendation 16 consultation in front of whoever owns payment messaging, since the end-of-2030 date will move faster than it reads.
Finally, keep the two FATF lists distinct in your documentation. The black and grey lists page is the canonical reference between plenaries, and conflating increased monitoring with a call for action is the most common error we see in country risk methodologies. Further reading sits under jurisdictions and regulation and in our note on jurisdiction risk.
