Comparative analysis examines crypto-laundering mechanisms in Southeast Asia and Europe, suggesting integrated regulatory approaches.
This paper examines how scam compounds, money mules and crypto-assets operate as interdependent elements of contemporary money-laundering chains. It assesses whether existing anti-money laundering (AML) and crypto-asset regulatory frameworks are capable of disrupting these chains holistically, rather than addressing individual components in isolation, with particular reference to scam-compound activity in Southeast Asia. The study adopts a qualitative comparative case-study methodology grounded in legal and regulatory analysis. Four empirically grounded cases are examined: two Southeast Asian scam-compound enforcement cases (Cambodia and Myanmar) and two European crypto-asset seizure cases (Ireland and Italy). Judicial decisions, enforcement actions and regulatory instruments are analysed through a chain-based analytical framework aligned with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) framework. The analysis reveals a structural divergence in enforcement strategies: Southeast Asian responses increasingly prioritise network- and infrastructure-level disruption of scam compounds, whereas European approaches remain largely centred on post-offence crypto-asset seizure through traditional proceeds-of-crime mechanisms. Across all jurisdictions, money mules emerge as a critical yet systematically under-regulated intermediary layer enabling the resilience of crypto-laundering operations. The paper advances existing AML typologies by conceptualising scam compounds, money mules and crypto-assets as interconnected components of a single crypto-laundering chain. This chain-based perspective offers a novel analytical and regulatory lens for understanding organised crypto-enabled fraud. The study is based on a qualitative, case-based design and does not aim for statistical generalisation. However, the analytical framework developed is transferable to other jurisdictions experiencing similar scam-compound and crypto-laundering dynamics. The findings suggest that effective AML enforcement requires coordinated intervention across multiple nodes of the laundering chain, including scam compound infrastructure and money mule networks, alongside traditional asset-seizure mechanisms and CASP supervision. By highlighting the structural links between scam compounds, coercive labour and crypto-laundering mechanisms, the paper underscores the broader social harms of crypto-enabled fraud and the need for integrated regulatory responses that address both financial crime and human exploitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gioia Arnone (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: