When Pakistan found itself placed on the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 2018, it did not come as a surprise to those familiar with the country’s long struggle against financial opacity, political uncertainty, and the persistent shadow of extremism. For years, Pakistan had hovered around the global spotlight, not for its potential, but for its perceived shortcomings in countering illicit financial flows and terror financing. Despite repeated commitments, it continued to face allegations of failing to stem the flow of money that fueled destabilizing networks.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
The FATF, a global watchdog on money laundering and terrorist financing, was established at the G7 summit in Paris in 1989 to promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory, and operational measures for combating such threats to the integrity of the international financial system. Over the decades, its influence has grown steadily, and placement on its grey list, formally known as “Jurisdictions Under Increased Monitoring”, has become a mark of international distrust. For countries like Pakistan, which rely heavily on foreign investment, international lending, and financial reputation, such designation is far from symbolic. It carries real, painful consequences.
The reasons behind Pakistan’s inclusion are both structural and symptomatic. First and foremost is the weakness in its regulatory framework. While the country boasts a diversified financial sector, with commercial banks, non-banking institutions, mutual funds, and a bustling stock exchange, the oversight and enforcement mechanisms remain weak. The tax system, for instance, continues to function unevenly, allowing powerful political elites and business lobbies to evade accountability. With only a fraction of the population regularly filing taxes, enormous sums circulate in the informal economy, beyond the scrutiny of regulators. This opacity creates fertile ground for illicit financial activities, including money laundering and tax evasion.
Another critical issue is the historical tolerance of militant financing networks. While Pakistan has waged a long and costly war against terrorism within its borders, some non-state actors have managed to raise and move funds with alarming ease. These networks, often ideological or sectarian in nature, exploit weak enforcement and informal channels, such as hawala and cash-based charity operations, to fund their activities. After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan’s earlier associations with Afghan and Kashmiri militant groups drew increased scrutiny. Despite military operations that dismantled many safe havens, international observers remained skeptical of the government’s resolve to root out all such elements, particularly when prosecutions and convictions remained rare or delayed.
Political instability has compounded the problem. Governments have come and gone, each promising reform but few delivering results that satisfy international benchmarks. Coalition fragility, civil-military tensions, and bureaucratic inertia have all weakened policymaking on critical issues like terror financing, banking transparency, and asset declaration. As a result, even well-intentioned initiatives often falter during implementation. Moreover, corruption, pervasive at every level, further erodes the state’s credibility. When lawmakers themselves fail to file taxes or declare assets, reform loses moral authority.
Pakistan’s economic landscape also suffers from a chronic lack of transparency. The informal economy thrives unchecked. Despite international obligations and periodic crackdowns, the use of unregulated transfer systems like hundi and hawala remains widespread, especially in remittance-heavy regions. These systems, though historically embedded in cultural practices, bypass conventional banking and pose severe monitoring challenges. Furthermore, financial secrecy enables capital flight, undermines the formal economy, and complicates efforts to trace sources of funds, whether legal or illicit.
While domestic factors are significant, international pressure cannot be overlooked. For better or worse, geopolitics plays a role. Pakistan’s strategic location and history of alliances have placed it under the microscope of global powers. The United States, in particular, has often linked its military and economic support to Pakistan’s performance on counterterrorism fronts. Likewise, countries within the FATF structure, such as India and France, have reportedly lobbied for strict measures, arguing that Pakistan has failed to deliver on long-standing commitments. Though not always rooted in bad faith, such pressure has often felt politically motivated, especially when similar concerns in other regions escape equivalent scrutiny.
The implications of greylisting have been far-reaching. Economically, the country faced difficulties in securing favorable lending terms from global institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Investors became wary of engaging in a market tainted by reputational risk. Foreign direct investment slowed, stock markets reacted nervously, and remittance flows experienced bottlenecks due to enhanced scrutiny. Commercial banks found themselves subject to enhanced due diligence, raising transaction costs for Pakistani businesses and discouraging financial integration.
Politically, the greylisting came at a time of transition. In 2018, Pakistan was under an interim government with no electoral mandate to push through controversial reforms. This vacuum slowed momentum at a time when urgency was paramount. Although key allies such as China and Saudi Arabia offered diplomatic cover, the reputational damage was significant. Domestically, the greylisting was seized upon by opposition parties to paint the government as either incompetent or complicit, further politicizing an already sensitive issue.
On the security front, the designation intensified scrutiny of Pakistan’s counterterrorism credentials. The country’s armed forces had conducted major operations in tribal regions, claiming significant gains against militant networks. However, international observers demanded more, particularly in terms of prosecuting financial facilitators, freezing assets, and bringing high-profile suspects to justice. The continued presence of designated individuals in public life, even if symbolic, undermined Pakistan’s claim of zero tolerance. Additionally, the financial strain created by greylisting threatened to reduce the state’s capacity to fund counterterrorism operations, forcing tough trade-offs in national budgeting.
Diplomatically, the grey list status created complications in forging international partnerships. Despite public statements supporting Pakistan’s reform efforts, several Western governments remained unconvinced. Even those who viewed Pakistan sympathetically could not ignore the FATF’s 27-point action plan, which demanded measurable progress across a range of indicators. While the country did meet many of these requirements by 2021, doubts persisted about the durability of its commitments.
In response, Pakistan launched an ambitious reform drive. The government enacted new laws, amended existing legislation, and introduced mechanisms to improve financial surveillance. Key steps included tightening the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) frameworks, increasing the number of prosecutions, and freezing bank accounts associated with banned outfits. High-profile convictions, such as that of Hafiz Saeed, signaled a shift in both strategy and tone. Although critics pointed out that these actions were overdue, they were nonetheless steps in the right direction.
Furthermore, Pakistan took measures to align its financial institutions with international norms. It improved Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, mandated stronger compliance for banks and money service providers, and invested in training for regulatory agencies. The country also began sharing financial intelligence with international partners more regularly, participating in cross-border investigations and multilateral platforms. These actions enhanced transparency and built trust with the FATF and member states.
To maintain this momentum, several strategies are necessary. Regulatory reform must not be episodic, driven solely by deadlines or diplomatic pressure. Instead, financial transparency must become embedded in national policy. This requires political will, institutional capacity, and public buy-in. Strengthening the Federal Board of Revenue, depoliticizing accountability agencies, and digitizing asset tracking could go a long way toward reducing opportunities for abuse.
Likewise, Pakistan must address root causes of illicit finance. Charitable fronts used for extremist purposes, porous borders exploited by traffickers, and informal money channels must all be brought under formal scrutiny. Additionally, law enforcement agencies need better coordination and training, particularly in forensic accounting and cyber-finance investigation. The goal should not be cosmetic compliance but durable capacity-building.
Internationally, Pakistan should continue to engage constructively with FATF and its regional affiliates. Diplomacy, transparency, and technical cooperation can help maintain the country’s standing and preempt future setbacks. Moreover, by fulfilling its commitments consistently, Pakistan can shift the narrative, from one of non-compliance to one of leadership in regional financial integrity.
Join Sir Kazim’s Extensive CSS/PMS English Course Starting July 7
Sir Kazim's CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis course starts July 7 at 8 p.m. Only 60 seats; apply early! Submit a 200-word paragraph to secure your spot. Fee: Rs. 15,000/month.
Critically, the country must ensure that reforms survive changes in government. FATF compliance should not be seen as a foreign imposition or political stick, but as an essential component of national development. A transparent economy not only satisfies global expectations but also benefits citizens by curbing corruption, widening the tax base, and improving public services.
In 2021, Pakistan finally exited the grey list, a development hailed by policymakers and diplomats alike. However, the experience must serve as a cautionary tale. The consequences of financial negligence are profound, not just for international reputation but for national stability. As the country battles economic hardship, political friction, and regional insecurity, it can ill afford a return to global isolation.
The path forward is clear. Commitments must be honored, institutions strengthened, and financial integrity upheld, not because the FATF demands it, but because Pakistan’s future depends on it.
