Europe’s financial sector is entering a new phase in its fight against financial crime, driven by a stronger appetite for structured collaboration between banks, FinTech firms and regulators.
A recurring message echoed throughout Salv’s recent Bridge Community Event: institutions can only move from reacting to criminal activity to genuinely disrupting it when they exchange intelligence confidently and securely.
Trust is essential, but trust alone does not suffice — it needs to be designed into systems, cultures and everyday practice, claims Salv.
The Baltics continue to exemplify this shift. Estonia’s long-standing emphasis on intelligence sharing has shaped some of the strongest cooperation models in the region, influencing thinking well beyond its borders. Latvia is taking a slightly different route, developing a closed KYC utility that supports the dependable exchange of information between financial institutions.
With the EU’s new Anti-Money Laundering Regulation set to become mandatory from 2027 — particularly Article 75, which governs cross-border information exchange — every institution in the bloc will soon need a compliant, verifiable mechanism for sharing intelligence across jurisdictions.
Salv CEO Taavi Tamkivi said that trust has “two sides: the formal and the human.” On the formal side, confidence comes from rigorous compliance processes, supported by audits, certifications and security frameworks that guarantee data protection. Salv’s own early experience meeting ISO 27001 standards and securing national licences showed how technical discipline builds institutional assurance. Yet Tamkivi also emphasised the power of personal engagement. Ahead of launching Salv Bridge, he met regulators and FIU leaders in person. “Just being in the same room changed the dynamic,” he said. “When people meet, they start trusting the process.” Across Europe, the most robust collaboration models follow that same principle — trust is intentionally cultivated through openness and consistent communication.
Legal caution, however, remains a persistent obstacle. Edgars Pastars, partner at Cobalt and legal adviser to Finance Latvia, has noted that many institutions operate far below what the law permits. His recommendation is cultural as much as legal: the question should shift from is it mandatory? to is it allowed? He has argued that legal teams must be brought in early and given a mandate to solve problems rather than block innovation. Coop Pank sanctions and counter-terrorism financing officer Siiri Gräbbi captured the idea succinctly: “Have lunch together before you draft the policy.” The collaboration between legal and compliance teams becomes a form of risk control in itself, enabling both sides to focus not only on the technical text but the intent behind the law.
Effective intelligence sharing depends on discipline and precision. Estonian banks using Bridge established agreed templates that set clear parameters for the questions that can be asked, how they are phrased and the legal grounds for each request. Strong audit trails ensure transparency, and rapid response times mean the exchange is practically useful. This structure helps reduce common anxieties around GDPR and competition law.
As Edgars noted, the goal is not to share less, but to share better — standardisation reduces unnecessary exposure while enabling faster, more confident cooperation. Estonia’s multi-agency approach demonstrates the benefits: information flagged as a potential terrorism concern once exposed an entirely separate narcotics network, revealing connections no single institution could have uncovered alone.
Cross-border cooperation, while essential, presents its own complexity. Criminal activity moves quickly, but legal frameworks do not. Tamkivi highlighted the importance of monitoring “super-nodes” — large FinTech and payments providers operating across multiple jurisdictions and serving millions of customers. Connecting with them requires direct engagement rather than new layers of bureaucracy. Evidence from Lithuania shows that once banks integrate into regional networks, fraudulent flows can be intercepted far more effectively. Article 75 of the new AML Regulation aims to harmonise the legal basis for cross-border collaboration, formalising much of what innovators have already built. Salv argues that both the technology and the underlying trust are already in place, with regulation expected to follow industry practice.
Ultimately, the aim of these models is deterrence. Faster recalls and cleaner audit trails matter, but the broader impact lies in undermining criminal business models. “You don’t have to stop every transaction,” Taavi said. “If criminals’ profitability drops by thirty per cent, they move on.” Case studies from Estonia suggest this outcome is already emerging. As cooperation deepens, institutions not only protect customers but strengthen their own competitive position. Legal clarity, data discipline and human trust are combining to create a new infrastructure — one where collaboration evolves from an aspiration into an operational norm.
Europe’s most connected markets demonstrate a clear lesson: trust is not a soft skill but a system. Building it deliberately, piece by piece, may yet become the region’s most powerful innovation in the fight against financial crime.
Find more on RegTech Analyst.
Copyright © 2025 FinTech Global
