AML compliance for VASPs is fundamentally a cybersecurity challenge. This article explains the technology controls VARA expects for transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, KYC verification, and suspicious activity detection.
For Virtual Asset Service Providers operating under VARA, Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism compliance is inseparable from cybersecurity. Virtual asset transactions occur on-chain and off-chain, across pseudonymous addresses, at high speed, and across jurisdictions. Without robust technology controls, effective AML compliance is impossible. VARA expects VASPs to implement technology-driven AML controls that are integrated into the broader cybersecurity architecture — not bolted on as an afterthought.
Traditional financial institutions have long understood that AML compliance depends on technology infrastructure. For VASPs, this dependency is even more pronounced because the transaction medium itself — blockchain — introduces complexities that do not exist in traditional banking.
A bank can trace a wire transfer through established correspondent banking networks with known counterparties. A VASP must trace value through pseudonymous addresses across multiple blockchains, through mixing services designed to obscure origin, across bridges that transfer value between incompatible chains, and through DeFi protocols that may have no identifiable operator. This requires specialized technology that goes far beyond traditional transaction monitoring, and the security of that technology infrastructure is a cybersecurity concern.
VARA expects AML systems to be subject to the same access controls, logging, monitoring, and change management requirements as other critical systems. An AML system that can be tampered with, bypassed, or accessed by unauthorized personnel is worse than having no system at all — it creates a false sense of compliance.
Customer onboarding is the first line of defense, and the technology supporting it must be both effective and secure. VARA requires reliable identity verification supported by technology that can withstand both fraud and technical attack.
Document verification systems must implement optical character recognition with anti-fraud capabilities including detection of digitally altered documents, inconsistencies between document security features and claimed issuance country, and duplicate document usage across accounts. Biometric verification must include liveness detection to prevent spoofing through photographs or video replay — ITSEC recommends active liveness detection that requires the user to perform specific actions rather than passive detection alone, as passive systems are increasingly defeated by deepfake technology.
All verification decisions must be logged with immutable audit trails capturing the documents presented, the verification checks performed, the outcome of each check, any manual override decisions with the identity and justification of the overriding officer, and timestamps for every step. These records must be retained for the full customer relationship plus the regulatory retention period — typically five years after the relationship ends.
The security of KYC data demands particular attention. A breach of customer due diligence records would compromise personal identification documents, proof of address, source of wealth documentation, and biometric data. This represents some of the most sensitive personal data any organization holds. ITSEC recommends encrypting KYC data at rest with customer-specific encryption keys, implementing strict role-based access that limits access to authorized compliance personnel only, maintaining detailed access logs for all KYC data access, and implementing data loss prevention controls that prevent bulk extraction.
VASPs must implement real-time or near-real-time transaction monitoring capable of detecting suspicious patterns. For virtual asset operations, this requires blockchain analytics capabilities that most traditional AML tools do not provide.
Effective blockchain analytics must be able to trace transaction flows across multiple hops to identify the ultimate source and destination of funds. The system must identify interactions with high-risk wallets including those associated with darknet markets, ransomware operations, sanctioned entities, fraud schemes, and terrorism financing. Cluster analysis must link related addresses that belong to the same entity even when the entity attempts to obscure the connection through address rotation. Cross-chain tracing is increasingly important as criminals exploit bridges and atomic swaps to move value between blockchains specifically to evade monitoring.
Pattern detection must be calibrated to identify structuring where deposits are broken into amounts just below reporting thresholds, rapid deposit-withdrawal cycles with minimal trading activity suggesting layering, unusual winning patterns in any gaming or prediction market features suggesting potential collusion, peeling chains where large amounts are broken into many small transactions sent to different addresses, and mixing service usage where funds pass through known tumbling or mixing protocols.
Monitoring rules must be regularly reviewed and tuned. ITSEC typically recommends monthly calibration reviews examining false positive rates, detection effectiveness, and emerging typologies. A monitoring system with a ninety-five percent false positive rate is not providing effective coverage — it is burying genuine alerts in noise.
Real-time sanctions screening is mandatory for VASPs under VARA. This applies to both fiat and virtual asset transactions and must cover all relevant sanctions lists including those maintained by the UAE Executive Office of AML/CFT, the UN Security Council, OFAC including the SDN list and its virtual currency addresses, and the EU consolidated list.
Screening must occur at three points: customer onboarding where all customer data is screened against current lists, transaction initiation where counterparty addresses are checked against known sanctioned addresses, and ongoing batch screening where the entire customer base is rescreened whenever sanctions lists are updated. Wallet address screening must check not only direct matches against sanctioned addresses but also addresses with known associations to sanctioned entities through blockchain analytics.
Match resolution processes must be documented with clear timeframes. Potential matches must be escalated to a qualified compliance officer for review, and true matches must result in immediate transaction blocking and regulatory reporting. The entire screening and resolution process must be logged with immutable audit trails.
When suspicious activity is detected, VASPs must have secure, confidential reporting mechanisms. The technology supporting suspicious activity reporting must ensure that reports are accessible only to authorized compliance personnel with need-to-know access. Filing records must be maintained securely with encryption and strict access controls. The reporting process itself must not alert the subject of the report — tipping off is a criminal offense in the UAE. Automated workflows should route alerts through defined escalation paths with SLAs for each stage of review.
ITSEC recommends implementing automated suspicious activity detection using both rule-based triggers and machine learning anomaly detection. Rule-based systems catch known patterns while machine learning identifies novel techniques that do not match established typologies. The combination provides defense in depth against both known and emerging money laundering methodologies.
VARA requires VASPs to comply with the Financial Action Task Force Travel Rule, which mandates that originator and beneficiary information accompanies virtual asset transfers above defined thresholds. The technology implementation of the Travel Rule requires secure messaging protocols between VASPs — typically implemented through solutions like TRISA, OpenVASP, or Sygna Bridge — identity verification of counterparty VASPs before information exchange, encryption of transmitted personal data in transit and at rest, and handling procedures for transfers where the counterparty VASP cannot be identified or does not support Travel Rule protocols.
ITSEC supports VASPs in designing and securing the technology infrastructure that underpins AML/CFT compliance. Our advisory spans blockchain analytics platform selection and integration, transaction monitoring rule development and calibration, KYC technology assessment and secure architecture design, sanctions screening implementation, and Travel Rule compliance architecture. We ensure that AML technology meets both VARA regulatory requirements and cybersecurity best practices — because an AML system that is not secure is an AML system that cannot be trusted. Contact ITSEC for an AML technology assessment.
Get a comprehensive security assessment from our expert team. Protecting businesses since 2011.