Human trafficking generates an estimated $236bn in illegal profits each year, with much of that money moving through financial activity that can appear entirely legitimate. For financial institutions, the challenge is increasingly about connecting those seemingly ordinary transactions to wider patterns of exploitation.
Nearly 50 million people are living in modern slavery globally, according to the International Labour Organization, including 27.6 million people in forced labour. The scale of the crime is vast, but its financial footprint can be difficult to identify because trafficking often operates through legitimate employment, payments and businesses.
According to Consilient chief commercial officer Laurence Hamilton, trafficking can begin with something as ordinary as a job offer. Workers may be charged recruitment fees, borrow money to secure employment and arrive already in debt. Travel, accommodation and documentation costs can then add to that burden, while wages may later be withheld, reduced or redirected.
What starts as employment can therefore become a financial trap. Small payments, payroll credits and remittances may all look routine when viewed individually, even when they form part of a wider system designed to extract value from a worker over time.
This creates a significant challenge for banks and other financial institutions. Transactions associated with trafficking may not immediately trigger traditional financial crime controls because they can resemble expected behaviour for migrant workers, low-income customers or small businesses.
Debt bondage is a particular concern. Recruitment fees and other costs can accumulate before or after a worker arrives, with repayments, penalties and deductions helping to keep individuals financially dependent.
The resulting activity can include legitimate-looking wage payments alongside regular transfers, remittances or deductions. The difficulty is identifying when these transactions are part of a wider system of control.
Migration adds another layer of complexity. Individuals may move voluntarily for work before discovering that the conditions they were promised do not exist. Others may experience direct coercion, document retention or restrictions on their movement.
Economic vulnerability can also increase exposure to exploitation, particularly where recruitment is informal and employment terms are unclear.
None of these situations necessarily creates an obvious financial warning sign. Instead, useful signals can emerge through behaviour over time.
How funds are accessed, who repeatedly receives payments, where money moves and whether multiple accounts appear financially connected can provide more context than an individual transaction.
Trafficking revenue is also rarely controlled by one person. Recruiters, brokers, transporters, accommodation providers and those controlling working conditions can all extract value at different stages.
Payments may move through accounts belonging to victims, intermediaries or businesses, while control is exercised through access to accounts, devices or banking credentials rather than direct ownership.
This creates a fragmented financial trail. Transactions can be relatively small, repeated over time and spread across multiple accounts and institutions. Viewed individually, they may appear unremarkable. Viewed collectively, they can reveal relationships and dependencies.
The same challenge applies across international trafficking corridors, including routes connecting Southeast Asia with the Middle East and East Asia, Latin America with the US, and Eastern Europe with Western Europe.
However, geography alone is unlikely to provide the answer. The more meaningful signal can lie in how people, accounts and money move between locations. For banks, this shifts the question from whether a single payment looks suspicious to what a series of connected transactions reveals.
A financial institution may only see one part of a trafficking network, with other elements spread across banks, payment providers, employers, recruiters and jurisdictions. This makes network-level intelligence increasingly important for identifying relationships that remain invisible when transactions are assessed in isolation.
Consilient‘s Hamilton said financial institutions cannot tackle human trafficking alone. But trafficking ultimately depends on money being generated, transferred and extracted. Understanding those financial networks could therefore give banks an important role in disrupting the economics that allow exploitation to continue.
For more, read the Consilient analysis here
Copyright © 2026 FinTech Global
