HomeCirculars › RBI/2009-10/494

RBI Tightens KYC/AML Rules for High-Risk Jurisdictions and Shell Banks

Live · in forceNo withdrawal recorded as of 20 Jun 2026. Reviewed by Vikram Jain; always verify against the official RBI source below.
Issued by RBI: 15 Jun 2010  ·  Decoded by BankPulse: 20 Jun 2026, 15:02 IST
⏱ ~2 min read
📄 Official RBI source ↗
Quick answerRBI mandates banks to scrutinize transactions from countries with weak AML/CFT regimes, using public info beyond FATF statements, and prohibits relationships with shell banks or foreign respondents that allow shell bank use.

What changed

RBI clarified that banks must use publicly available information, not just FATF statements, to identify countries with deficient AML/CFT regimes. It also reinforced that banks must examine the background and purpose of transactions from such jurisdictions and retain findings for authorities. Additionally, RBI explicitly prohibited entering into relationships with shell banks and required banks to verify that foreign respondent institutions do not allow shell bank use.

What it means for you

Banks must now proactively monitor and document transactions from high-risk jurisdictions, even if not explicitly listed by FATF, increasing compliance burden. The shell bank prohibition tightens correspondent banking due diligence, potentially limiting relationships with foreign institutions that have weak controls. Non-compliance risks penalties under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

What you must do

Who it affects

All Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs), All India Financial Institutions, Local Area Banks

What sources should we use to identify high-risk jurisdictions beyond FATF statements?

RBI advises using publicly available information, such as reports from international bodies or credible sources, to identify countries that do not or insufficiently apply FATF recommendations.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with these guidelines?

Non-compliance or contravention of these guidelines, issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, will attract penalties under the same Act.

How should we handle transactions from high-risk jurisdictions that seem to have no lawful purpose?

Examine the background and purpose of such transactions, document written findings, retain all related documents, and make them available to RBI or other authorities upon request.

Track this rule
⏳ How this rule evolved — History Map →Full RBI rulebook crosswalk →
AI-drafted · 3-model AI consensus fact-check · under the editorial review of Vikram Jain · decoded & published by BankPulse · 20 Jun 2026, 15:02 IST
Official RBI source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=5726&Mode=0 — Plain-English summary by BankPulse (bankpulse.ai), reviewed by Vikram Jain. Independent platform, not affiliated with the Reserve Bank of India; never reproduces RBI text verbatim.