Cryptocurrencies as a Tool for Money Laundering: Risk Assessment and Perception of Threats Based on Empirical Research

Abstract

As the global economy undergoes rapid digital transformation, cryptocurrencies have emerged as a prominent alternative class of financial assets. Their decentralized nature, pseudonymity, and lack of centralized oversight have attracted considerable interest among investors while simultaneously raising significant concerns among regulators and compliance professionals. While cryptocurrencies offer benefits such as enhanced accessibility and transactional privacy, they also pose notable risks, particularly their potential misuse in financial crimes, including money laundering. This study explores the perceived risks associated with cryptocurrencies in the context of money laundering, drawing on insights from a survey conducted among 50 financial sector professionals. A quantitative research design was employed, using a structured online questionnaire to assess participants’ awareness, investment behavior, and perceptions of the role of cryptocurrencies in illicit finance and financial system security. The results reveal a complex perspective: while 70% of respondents acknowledged the potential for cryptocurrencies to facilitate money laundering, 60% expressed support for their wider adoption. Notably, statistically significant correlations emerged between active investment in cryptocurrencies and the belief that they could enhance financial market security and reduce laundering risks. However, self-reported knowledge levels and general awareness did not show a significant relationship with perceived risk. The findings underscore the importance of a balanced approach to regulation, one that fosters innovation while mitigating illicit finance risks. The study recommends increased investment in user education, the development of blockchain analytics, the adoption of global regulatory standards and enhanced international cooperation to ensure the responsible evolution of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

1. Introduction

The accelerating advancement of digital technologies and the widespread digitalization of the global economy have introduced new forms of financial assets, most notably cryptocurrencies. Since the launch of Bitcoin in 2009, these digital currencies have evolved from niche technological innovations into mainstream instruments of exchange and investment. Their appeal stems from core features such as decentralization, pseudonymity, and the absence of centralized oversight—attributes that both enhance their utility and complicate regulatory control. Although considerable research has addressed the technological and regulatory dimensions of cryptocurrencies (Arner et al. 2017; Houben and Snyers 2018; Zetzsche and Sinnig 2024), limited focus has been given to the perspectives of professionals engaged in Anti-Money Laundering compliance, leaving practical challenges underexplored (Zavoli and King 2021; Unger et al. 2021).

This dual nature has raised substantial concerns among regulators and financial oversight bodies, particularly regarding the use of cryptocurrencies in illicit activities like money laundering. While existing literature extensively examines the technological architecture and financial implications of cryptocurrencies, there remains a notable gap concerning the perspectives of financial-sector professionals responsible for implementing anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks. Although studies by Houben and Snyers (2018) and Al-Tawil (2022) briefly acknowledge this issue, they do not thoroughly explore practitioners’ understanding and experiences, leaving the professional viewpoint underdeveloped in current research.

Addressing this gap is crucial because financial-sector professionals are at the frontline of detecting and preventing illicit financial flows involving cryptocurrencies. Their practical insights, awareness levels, and perceived challenges are essential to designing more effective AML policies and regulatory responses. Without understanding these frontline experiences, regulatory frameworks risk being misaligned with operational realities, reducing their effectiveness in combating financial crime in the evolving digital economy.

The novelty of this study lies in its direct focus on the lived perspectives and experiential knowledge of financial-sector professionals an angle rarely prioritized in cryptocurrency and AML research. Unlike prior studies that concentrate on blockchain transaction analysis, regulatory frameworks, or consumer behavior, this research specifically targets compliance officers, investment analysts, and regulatory consultants, whose day-to-day responsibilities involve applying AML measures in high-risk environments. The combination of quantitative perception mapping with a targeted professional sample enables a practitioner-oriented understanding of cryptocurrency-related AML risks. This practitioner lens, supported by a contemporary dataset collected between 2021 and 2022, captures the rapidly evolving intersection of digital assets and financial crime in a post-pandemic, regulation-intensifying context providing insights that are both timely and operationally relevant.

This article aims to address this gap by assessing the level of knowledge and perceived risks associated with cryptocurrencies among financial sector professionals. Their insights provide a valuable complement to system-focused analyses and can inform more effective regulatory and educational strategies to combat financial crime in the digital economy.

To guide this investigation, the following hypotheses have been formulated:

H1. 

Individuals more engaged in cryptocurrency investments tend to have a higher awareness of the risks related to money laundering but still perceive cryptocurrencies as improving financial market safety.

H2. 

The vast majority of respondents support the broader introduction of virtual currency into the economy.

A detailed demographic breakdown of the research sample including age, gender, education level, and employment status is presented in the methodology section.

1.1. Introduction to the Topic of Money Laundering—Definition and Process

Money laundering refers to the process by which individuals seek to legitimize financial resources acquired through illegal means by disguising their origin, allowing these assets to be integrated into the formal financial system. The primary objective is to obscure the illicit nature of the funds and enable their use within the legal economy (Unger and Ferwerda 2011).

Globalization and increased financial integration have intensified this phenomenon, facilitating the flow of funds across jurisdictions and enabling illicit actors to exploit international financial systems. Common techniques involve the use of offshore accounts, shell companies, and falsified documents. Organized crime activities such as drug trafficking, tax fraud, and corruption are closely linked to money laundering practices (Levi and Reuter 2006).

The most widely accepted framework divides money laundering into three key phases (Figure 1):

According to the Financial Action Task Force’s Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (FATF 2019), the emergence of cryptocurrency-based money laundering introduces additional complexity. Criminals employ tools such as mixers, proxy servers, and virtual private networks (VPNs) to conceal user identities, alongside phishing tactics to hijack victims’ accounts. Furthermore, platforms involved in online gambling, art trade, and real estate transactions serve to further obscure the flow of illicit funds.

1.2. Counteracting Money Laundering in Cryptocurrency Trading

In response to these risks, numerous AML policies and technological tools have been globally adopted to mitigate money laundering within cryptocurrency markets. Central among these is the implementation of Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, mandating that trading platforms verify user identities, thereby reducing anonymity and enhancing transparency.

Other important countermeasures include:

• Transaction monitoring systems capable of detecting irregular patterns, such as unusual trading volumes or unexpected international transfers;
• Restrictions on anonymous transactions to ensure traceability and accountability;
• Mandatory reporting obligations requiring exchanges to notify regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies of suspicious activities.

International organizations, notably the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), have played a pivotal role in developing harmonized compliance standards. These guidelines promote coordination across jurisdictions and foster a safer digital financial environment.

1.3. Introduction to the History and Concept of Cryptocurrencies

Money traditionally serves three fundamental functions within an economy: as a measure of value, a store of value, and a medium of exchange (Mishkin 2016). The stability of purchasing power is essential to the effective performance of these functions. Building on Keynesian economic theory, money’s role as a store of value also supports long-term speculation (Keynes 1936).

The development of electronic money (e-money) has been propelled by advances in digital technologies. Unlike physical cash, e-money exists exclusively in digital form and depends on robust IT infrastructure. Its advantages include lower production costs, easier distribution, and faster transactional capabilities.

Cryptocurrencies represent a further evolution within the realm of digital finance. Although they lack universal acceptance, cryptocurrencies replicate several key properties of traditional currencies, including divisibility, transferability, and value retention. Leveraging cryptographic algorithms and blockchain networks, cryptocurrencies facilitate secure and decentralized peer-to-peer transactions (Nakamoto 2008; Böhme et al. 2015).

1.3.1. The Principles of Cryptocurrency Functioning

Cryptocurrencies function through blockchain platforms, which uphold transaction integrity via distributed ledger systems. Bitcoin, introduced in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, established a decentralized financial model that verifies transactions without intermediaries. Users perform direct transfers through protocols secured by consensus algorithms.

Key consensus mechanisms include:

• Proof of Work (PoW): Utilized by Bitcoin, where miners validate transaction blocks by solving complex computational puzzles.
• Proof of Stake (PoS): Employed by altcoins such as Factom, where transaction verification is based on ownership stakes, resulting in lower energy consumption compared to PoW.

Some blockchain platforms, including Ethereum and NEO, extend functionality beyond simple transfers by enabling smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps). Tokens like Civic (CVC) and BitDegree (BDG) serve specific investment or utility roles within these ecosystems.

Cryptocurrency trading primarily takes place on centralized exchanges such as Binance and OKEx. However, many operate within regulatory gray zones, exposing users to risks such as fund loss, fraud, and AML non-compliance.

1.3.2. Legal Regulations Regarding Cryptocurrencies

The decentralized nature of blockchain technology presents unique legal challenges. Transactions are processed across globally distributed nodes without a central controlling entity or a clearly defined jurisdiction, complicating enforcement and regulatory oversight (Houben and Snyers 2018).

Security vulnerabilities have exposed systemic risks. For example, a 2017 flaw in the Ethereum network endangered millions of dollars, while the 2020 Ledger data breach compromised customer information, underscoring concerns about cybersecurity and consumer protection.

Regulatory frameworks differ significantly worldwide:

• United States: Regulatory oversight is fragmented; the SEC classifies some digital assets as securities, the CFTC treats others as commodities, and FinCEN enforces AML and KYC compliance.
• European Union: The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation aims to harmonize regulations across member states.
• China: Cryptocurrency trading is banned in favor of a state-backed digital yuan.
• Japan and Singapore: These jurisdictions offer clearer licensing regimes and regulatory support for exchanges and investors (Al-Tawil 2022).

Such diversity underscores the need for localized legal awareness and adaptable compliance strategies for stakeholders operating in the international digital asset market.

1.3.3. The Use of Cryptocurrencies in Money Laundering

The decentralized and pseudonymous features of cryptocurrencies make them attractive for laundering illicit funds. Common laundering techniques include:

• Use of decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) exchanges that circumvent institutional oversight;
• Employment of mixers and tumblers that fragment and redistribute transaction trails across multiple wallets;
• Adoption of privacy-focused cryptocurrencies, such as Monero and Zcash, which obscure transaction metadata and hinder law enforcement tracing efforts.

Additionally, unregulated platforms accepting cryptocurrency payments for gambling or informal trade exacerbate enforcement challenges. Cross-border cryptocurrency transactions further enable circumvention of traditional banking systems, expanding opportunities for illicit use.

Cryptocurrencies are often exploited in cybercrime, with ransomware attacks typically demanding payment in Bitcoin. Criminals may use mixer services to convert stolen or extorted cryptocurrency into fiat currency or investments. Recent legal initiatives, including the establishment of the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and amendments to the AMLA Act (2021), aim to improve transparency and inter-agency cooperation.

Nevertheless, the inherent design of blockchain presents significant challenges for transaction tracing. Illicit actors exploit alternative banking platforms such as Revolut and N26, as well as foreign brokers, to evade detection. Emerging technologies incorporating artificial intelligence show promise in enhancing AML detection, although practical deployment remains limited (Houben and Snyers 2018; Al-Tawil 2022).

1.4. Addressing Gaps in the Existing Literature

Despite the extensive body of work analyzing cryptocurrency technologies, laundering methods, and regulatory responses, a significant gap persists concerning the perspectives of financial-sector practitioners tasked with implementing AML frameworks. Although studies by Houben and Snyers (2018) and Al-Tawil (2022) acknowledge this underexplored dimension, there remains limited research investigating how AML policies and tools are perceived, interpreted, and operationalized by frontline professionals.

Bridging this gap is essential for enhancing the practical effectiveness of regulatory measures and technological solutions. By incorporating the insights and experiences of practitioners, AML frameworks can be better tailored to meet the operational realities of combating financial crime in an evolving digital economy.

2. Methodology of Own Research

2.1. Purpose and Subject of the Article

This study investigates the intersection between cryptocurrency adoption and anti-money laundering (AML) vulnerabilities, focusing on how financial sector professionals perceive associated risks. The objectives are twofold: (1) to evaluate respondents’ self-assessed knowledge of cryptocurrencies, and (2) to explore their perception of how these digital assets may facilitate or hinder money laundering activities. The central research question asks to what extent individuals associated with the financial sector recognize and understand the AML risks posed by cryptocurrencies.

The subject of the study encompasses the perceived threats posed by cryptocurrencies in the context of financial crime, particularly money laundering. Given the increasing integration of digital assets into financial markets and the parallel development of regulatory frameworks, this inquiry is timely and relevant to compliance professionals, regulators, and institutional stakeholders.

The analysis focuses on a population of individuals with professional links to the financial sector, including compliance officers, investment analysts, and regulatory consultants. Their experience is presumed to influence their interpretation of cryptocurrency-related risks. Two hypotheses underpin the research:

(1)

Individuals with direct involvement in cryptocurrency investments exhibit higher awareness of AML risks, yet are more likely to perceive digital assets as contributors to market security.

(2)

A significant proportion of financial sector professionals support broader institutional and economic integration of virtual currencies.

2.2. Research Method and Sampling Strategy

This study employed a quantitative research design using an anonymous online questionnaire featuring closed-ended and Likert-scale items. This approach was selected because quantitative surveys are well-suited for systematically measuring knowledge levels, risk perception, and policy preferences across a targeted professional group (Creswell 2014). The use of structured questions enables efficient data collection and statistical analysis, facilitating comparisons and generalizable insights within the constraints of available resources (Bryman 2016).

The sampling frame was estimated at approximately 1200 finance-sector professionals, drawn from the authors’ extended professional networks and relevant industry groups on LinkedIn, financial compliance forums, and organizational directories. This frame was purposefully constructed to focus on individuals likely to possess relevant experience with cryptocurrency and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance, ensuring the data’s relevance to the research objectives (Etikan et al. 2016).

From this population, a target sample of 400 individuals was invited to participate through electronic invitations sent via LinkedIn, email, and posts on professional forums. To supplement digital outreach, a limited number of paper-based questionnaires were also distributed at professional conferences. This mixed-mode approach aimed to increase response rates and sample diversity while maintaining logistical feasibility (Dillman et al. 2014).

The final response rate was approximately 12.5%, with 50 valid responses collected. While this rate is consistent with expectations for voluntary, non-incentivized surveys among busy professionals (Nulty 2008), it introduces potential limitations regarding external validity and representativeness. The reliance on convenience sampling and the modest sample size inherently increase the risk of selection bias, as respondents may differ systematically from non-respondents in knowledge, attitudes, or engagement levels (Heckathorn 2011). However, targeting participants with at least basic cryptocurrency familiarity sought to improve data relevance and reduce random noise.

No formal statistical power calculation was conducted prior to data collection due to the exploratory nature of the study and challenges in obtaining a fully randomized sample frame (Stevens 2012). The study’s focus was on generating preliminary insights rather than hypothesis testing, consistent with methodological recommendations for nascent research areas.

To mitigate bias and enhance interpretability, demographic variation within the sample (age, job role, professional experience) was assessed and confirmed, providing some assurance of heterogeneity. The statistical analysis involved tests with degrees of freedom ranging from 1 to 4, appropriate for the categorical comparisons pursued.

Future research should aim to adopt more rigorous sampling strategies, such as stratified random sampling, to enhance representativeness and facilitate inferential statistics with appropriate power analyses (Fink 2017). Additionally, incorporating qualitative methods like follow-up interviews would provide richer contextual understanding and triangulation of findings (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017).

2.3. Research Tools

For data collection, the diagnostic survey method was used, with the questionnaire technique serving as the primary instrument. The diagnostic survey was selected for its efficacy in collecting data from a relatively large number of respondents in a limited timeframe, facilitating a comprehensive exploration of the research problem (Creswell 2014). The questionnaire technique enabled standardized data collection essential for systematic comparison and robust quantitative analysis (Bryman 2016). The questionnaire was carefully constructed to align with research objectives and ensure relevance and focus (Saunders et al. 2019).

The questionnaire contained 15 questions and was distributed to the target sample of 400 individuals, resulting in 50 complete and usable responses. All participants self-reported at least basic knowledge of cryptocurrencies. Ethical standards were observed by informing participants of the study’s aims and assuring response anonymity.

Data collection occurred from October 2021 to March 2022, using both electronic dissemination via social media platforms (300 copies) and paper-based distribution (100 copies), allowing broader demographic reach. Responses were quantified and analyzed using numerical and percentage metrics.

3. Analysis and Results of the Conducted Research

3.1. Analysis of the Conducted Research

The survey conducted for the purposes of this article involved 50 respondents, representing a population of 1200 individuals connected to the financial sector. Among the respondents, 34% were women and 66% were men. Regarding age, 54% of respondents were between 18 and 30 years old, 26% were between 31 and 50 years old, and 20% were 51 years old or older. In terms of place of residence, 62% of respondents lived in cities, while 38% came from rural areas. Concerning educational background, 4% of participants had primary education, 14% had vocational education, 42% had secondary education, and 40% had higher education.

In summary, the group of respondents was characterized by considerable diversity in terms of gender, age, place of residence, and educational level. While this demographic variation provides valuable insights, the findings should be interpreted with caution given the limited sample size and the use of convenience sampling.

In the next part of the survey, participants answered 10 questions about the cryptocurrency market and its connections to financial crime threats. The analysis of the results shows that 20% of the respondents became interested in cryptocurrencies after hearing about them from friends, 38% learned about them through the internet, 16% sought information on their own, and 24% encountered them in the media.

An extended analysis of the data confirms that the sample effectively reflects the preferences of the entire population in terms of the distribution of answers. The statistical significance of the results, verified through a two-tailed Student’s t-test, is confirmed by a p-value below the alpha level of 0.05.

Many respondents showed a positive correlation between their answers and the overall results of the survey, particularly among men and individuals residing in urban areas. However, negative correlations were observed among women and people running their own businesses. In the case of women, there was a reverse trend, where their answers did not correlate positively with the results of the entire group.

The conclusions from these analyses suggest a differentiated approach to the cryptocurrency market depending on gender and professional status, which may have significant implications for further research on this market and its potential threats.

3.2. Survey

Please answer the questions contained in the survey questionnaire regarding the perception of security and threats related to crime resulting from the spread of cryptocurrencies in the global economy.

The study is voluntary and anonymous, and all data collected will be used solely for quantitative analysis in the preparation of a thesis.

(A)

Respondent Demographics

• Please indicate your gender:
  • Female
  • Male
• Please indicate your age group:
  • 18–30 years
  • 31–50 years
  • 51 years and above
• Please indicate your place of residence:
  • City
  • Village
• Please indicate your education level:
  • Primary
  • Vocational
  • Secondary
  • Higher
• Please indicate your employment status:
  • Office work (full-time)
  • Manual work (full-time)
  • Own business
  • Casual work
  • Homemaker
  • Unemployed
  • Pupil/student
  • Retired/pensioner

(B)

Knowledge about Cryptocurrencies

6.

How did you become interested in cryptocurrencies?

• Heard from friends
• Read about it online
• Looked up information on innovations myself
• Heard in the media
• Other, please specify

7.

How long have you been interested in cryptocurrencies?

• Up to half a year
• Less than 1 year
• Up to 3 years
• More than 3 years

8.

In what way are you interested in cryptocurrencies?

• Only theoretically
• In practice (I invest or plan to invest in this market)

9.

How do you assess your level of knowledge about cryptocurrencies?

• Definitely high
• Rather high
• Average
• Rather low
• Definitely low

10.

To what extent would you personally like cryptocurrencies to become widespread in the economy?

• Definitely yes
• Rather yes
• Rather no
• Definitely no
• Hard to say

11.

In your opinion, when will cryptocurrencies become widespread in the global economy?

• Before 2030
• After 2030
• Hard to say

12.

Do you think there is a high risk of increased crime resulting from the spread of cryptocurrencies?

• Definitely yes
• Rather yes
• Rather no
• Definitely no
• Hard to say

13.

In your opinion, what is the main factor contributing to crime risk due to the spread of cryptocurrencies?

• Anonymity of transactions
• Risk of code being broken
• Other, please specify

14.

To what extent, in your personal opinion, does the spread of cryptocurrencies create a risk of increased money laundering?

• Definitely creates
• Rather creates
• Rather does not create
• Definitely does not create
• Hard to say

15.

To what extent, in your opinion, will the financial market be safer if cryptocurrencies become widespread?

• Definitely safer
• Rather safer
• Rather less safe
• Definitely less safe
• Hard to say

3.3. Summary of Research Results on Cryptocurrency Interest

The results of the study show that among those interested in cryptocurrencies, there is a prevailing positive attitude towards their introduction into the economy, as well as a belief in the low risk associated with criminal activities in this market. Respondents are engaged in cryptocurrency investments, but their knowledge on the subject is not considered exceptionally high. Nevertheless, they view cryptocurrencies as an element that will positively impact the safety of the financial market.

Although the study group may not be fully representative of the entire population, the results align with the general trends among those interested in cryptocurrencies. The statistical analysis shows that individuals engaged in the topic of cryptocurrencies predominantly believe in their positive influence on economic development and financial security, with low risk of criminal activities. The study results concerning the sources of interest in cryptocurrencies indicate diversity, with the Internet being the most frequent source of information (38%), followed by friends (20%) and media (24%). Some respondents sought information independently (16%), and a small percentage pointed to other sources, such as events or online forums (2%).

The correlation analysis reveals a strong association among men and individuals living in urban areas, while differences were observed in the answers of women and people running their own businesses, who had distinct preferences compared to the general results. Regarding the duration of interest in cryptocurrencies, 12% of respondents have been interested in them for less than 6 months, 20% for less than a year, 36% for up to three years, and 32% for more than three years. In the group of individuals with higher education, the distribution of answers was less statistically significant, suggesting that their opinions might be less representative.

In terms of the nature of interest in cryptocurrencies, 40% of respondents engage with the topic only theoretically, while 60% do so practically, by investing or planning investments. Although there are some differences in responses from people over 50 years old and among rural residents or employees, the lack of clear statistical discrepancies makes it difficult to assess the significance of these preferences.

The level of knowledge about cryptocurrencies was rated by the majority of respondents as relatively high. 16% considered their knowledge to be definitely high, and 76% rated it as rather high. Individuals with primary education were the exception, indicating a lower level of understanding of the topic. Most groups did not show significant differences in assessing their level of knowledge, suggesting that respondents generally have similar awareness about cryptocurrencies.

Regarding the dissemination of cryptocurrencies in the economy, 80% of respondents expressed a desire for their broader introduction, while only 4% were opposed, which supports the second hypothesis stating that a strong majority of respondents support the wider introduction of virtual currency into the economy.

Regarding future predictions, 74% of respondents expect cryptocurrencies to become widespread after 2030. The study also shows strong support for the development of cryptocurrencies, despite some concerns related to the risk of criminal activity and money laundering. Only 10% of respondents considered this risk to be lower, while 74% feared that cryptocurrencies could contribute to the increase in money laundering activities.

Respondents generally view cryptocurrencies as an element that could strengthen the security of the financial market, with 74% of participants considering their impact to be “definitely safer.” However, opinions on this issue vary depending on education level and age, with individuals with higher education and those particularly interested in cryptocurrencies believing that the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies will have no significant impact on the development of crimes related to money laundering. This aligns with the first hypothesis, which suggests that individuals more involved in cryptocurrency investments tend to have a higher awareness of the risks associated with money laundering, but still perceive cryptocurrencies as an element that enhances the safety of the financial market.

In conclusion, the results of the study indicate a growing interest in cryptocurrencies and a predominance of positive attitudes toward their future development, despite some concerns about the risk of criminal activity.

4. Discussion and Conclusions of the Research

4.1. Summary of the Research Findings on Cryptocurrencies

The survey conducted among 50 respondents aimed at gathering opinions on cryptocurrencies, their security, and their impact on the development of crime brought the following key conclusions (see Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5):

Characteristics of the Respondents:

• The majority of respondents are men.
• The largest group of respondents is aged 18–30.
• Respondents are mainly from urban areas, and their education level is either secondary or higher.
• Most respondents are employed full-time.

Interest in Cryptocurrencies:

• Interest in cryptocurrencies mainly arises from information available on the Internet, although this phenomenon was not statistically significant.
• The majority of respondents have been interested in cryptocurrencies for less than 3 years and actively invest in this market, which showed statistical significance.
• Respondents rated their knowledge of cryptocurrencies as fairly high, but this result was not statistically significant.

Opinion on the Widespread Use of Cryptocurrencies:

• The majority of respondents support the widespread use of cryptocurrencies in the economy, although they predict that this process will occur after 2030. However, these results were not statistically significant.
• Respondents believed that the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies in the economy would not increase the risk of crime but could actually reduce the risk of money laundering, which proved to be statistically significant.

Financial Market Security:

Respondents are convinced that cryptocurrencies will contribute to increased financial market security, which showed statistical significance.

4.2. Discussion

The findings of this study reveal a complex and, at times, seemingly paradoxical perception of cryptocurrencies among professionals within the financial sector. A substantial proportion of respondents acknowledge the intrinsic risks cryptocurrencies pose in facilitating money laundering, largely attributed to their pseudonymous nature, decentralized infrastructure, and the use of advanced obfuscation techniques. At the same time, a notable segment of participants expresses endorsement for the broader adoption of digital assets and perceives them as potential enhancers of financial market security. This juxtaposition underscores a fragmented and evolving understanding of cryptocurrencies, shaped by an interplay of technological optimism and regulatory apprehension. On one hand, respondents may place trust in the growing ability of blockchain technology to enhance transparency and traceability, which could, in principle, support anti-money laundering measures more effectively than traditional systems. On the other hand, optimism may also stem from expectations of future regulatory improvements, as well as the respondents’ professional backgrounds, which may predispose them to view innovation as an integral component of market development. Taken together, these perspectives highlight how attitudes toward cryptocurrencies are not uniform but are mediated by both perceived risks and hopes regarding technological and regulatory progress.

This ambivalence reflects a sophisticated perspective that transcends a simplistic binary of risks versus benefits. Respondents appear to grasp that the very characteristics which enable illicit exploitation namely rapid, cross-border transaction capabilities and reduced dependence on traditional intermediaries can conversely facilitate greater transparency and operational efficiency when subjected to robust regulatory oversight. This duality resonates with observations by Mantri et al. (2020), who highlight that notwithstanding the challenges posed by mixers and privacy wallets, the inherent immutability and traceability of blockchain technology constitute invaluable tools for forensic and compliance investigations.

The extant literature concerning blockchain technology and anti-money laundering presents divergent viewpoints. On one hand, proponents emphasize blockchain’s transformative potential to enhance transparency, accountability, and auditability within financial systems, thereby serving as a deterrent to illicit conduct and a catalyst for improved regulatory compliance. Conversely, critics illuminate substantial limitations in practical enforcement, underscoring the technical difficulties associated with monitoring complex cross-chain activities, the proliferation of privacy-enhancing protocols, and the heterogeneity of regulatory regimes internationally. In this context, the present study makes a salient contribution by providing empirical insights into the perceptions of financial professionals stakeholders who are often underrepresented in discourse dominated by technical or policy-oriented analyses. This practitioner-focused lens offers a pragmatic complement to theoretical frameworks and enriches the understanding of how AML vulnerabilities are perceived in operational environments.

Demographically, the data indicate that male respondents and individuals with greater exposure to financial technologies tend to display more favorable attitudes towards cryptocurrency adoption, notwithstanding their recognition of associated AML risks. This trend may reflect an elevated confidence in emerging technological countermeasures, such as sophisticated blockchain analytics platforms and real-time compliance monitoring solutions. In contrast, more risk-averse cohorts—including older professionals and those engaged primarily in legal or compliance functions—exhibit greater caution, frequently citing concerns related to regulatory gaps, enforcement deficiencies, and the nascent state of international coordination.

It is imperative to situate these findings within the evolving regulatory landscape. Recent policy initiatives, notably the Financial Action Task Force’s 2019 guidance on virtual asset service providers (VASPs) and the implementation of the U.S. Travel Rule, directly address the anonymity concerns articulated by respondents by mandating rigorous identity verification and enhanced transaction monitoring protocols. The degree of confidence expressed by some participants regarding the prospective role of cryptocurrencies may be indicative of growing trust in such regulatory measures and in analytic technologies developed by entities like Chainalysis and Elliptic, which have gained significant traction within both regulatory agencies and private sector institutions.

Nonetheless, the coexistence of perceptions that cryptocurrencies simultaneously serve as instruments for illicit activities and as mechanisms enhancing financial market security suggests a cognitive dissonance or an incomplete grasp of the practical realities. This ambivalence likely reflects exposure to polarized narratives pervasive in media and academic circles on the one hand, narratives extolling innovation, financial inclusion, and technological progress; on the other, cautionary accounts emphasizing systemic vulnerabilities and the potential for criminal exploitation. Such dissonance underscores the urgent need for enhanced anti-money laundering education and interdisciplinary training tailored to digital asset contexts, particularly targeted at stakeholders operating in jurisdictions or sectors characterized by elevated risk.

In conclusion, this study contributes meaningfully to the ongoing discourse on digital assets by demonstrating that perceptions within the financial sector are neither monolithic nor static. Instead, they embody a transitional epoch wherein technological optimism coexists uneasily with regulatory skepticism. Navigating this complexity will require a concerted effort encompassing targeted regulatory policies, continued technological advancements, and comprehensive cross-sector education initiatives. Only through such integrative approaches can the balance between fostering financial innovation and safeguarding systemic integrity be effectively achieved.

5. Recommendations

Based on the empirical findings of this study as well as conclusions from the theoretical part of the Article, several policy and practice-oriented recommendations are proposed to strengthen anti-money laundering (AML) mechanisms within the cryptocurrency domain. These recommendations directly respond to the attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge gaps identified among financial sector professionals and are intended to inform both regulatory development and institutional practice.

The data revealed that 76% of respondents self-reported a relatively high level of knowledge regarding cryptocurrencies. However, this perception coexists with evident concerns about the potential of digital assets to facilitate money laundering. This suggests a disparity between self-assessed knowledge and comprehensive understanding of the associated risks, particularly with respect to technical obfuscation methods and evolving compliance requirements. In light of this, it is recommended that targeted educational interventions be implemented to bridge this gap. These initiatives should be developed through collaboration among regulatory authorities, academic institutions, and cryptocurrency service providers, and should emphasize the operational mechanics of blockchain technology, money laundering typologies specific to the crypto space, and the legal responsibilities under national and international AML frameworks.

Furthermore, the statistically significant finding that a notable share of respondents consider cryptocurrencies to enhance the overall security of financial markets despite acknowledging their vulnerability to misuse underscores the perceived duality of these technologies. This ambivalence highlights the necessity for the establishment and enforcement of harmonized regulatory standards. In particular, emphasis should be placed on the robust implementation of Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols and the full adoption of the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) revised guidelines, including the Travel Rule for virtual asset service providers. Uniform application of such standards across jurisdictions would help mitigate regulatory arbitrage, strengthen supervisory consistency, and enhance the traceability of crypto-based transactions.

Additionally, the expressed confidence in the future role of cryptocurrencies despite concerns regarding their misuse signals receptiveness to technological solutions that can mitigate associated risks. Therefore, further investment in advanced blockchain analytics, artificial intelligence–driven monitoring systems, and anomaly detection technologies is strongly recommended. These tools would enhance the ability of compliance departments to proactively detect illicit behavior and would significantly improve investigative capabilities within law enforcement agencies. The integration of such technologies into AML infrastructures should be incentivized through public–private partnerships and supported by regulatory guidance on best practices for digital surveillance and forensic audits.

Lastly, given the inherently transnational nature of cryptocurrency transactions and the respondents’ recognition of cross-border vulnerabilities, there is a critical need for enhanced international cooperation. Coordinated collaboration among regulatory agencies, financial intelligence units (FIUs), and state authorities is essential to ensure efficient data exchange, mutual legal assistance, and consistent enforcement. Establishing formalized mechanisms for cross-border regulatory alignment would significantly reduce the ability of illicit actors to exploit jurisdictional inconsistencies and would contribute to a more coherent and resilient global AML framework in the digital asset ecosystem.

6. Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study offers valuable insights into the perceived risks and regulatory needs surrounding cryptocurrencies, several limitations must be acknowledged. Most notably, the study relies on 50 valid responses, representing a relatively small proportion of the target sample. In addition, the sample is geographically limited, consisting solely of financial sector professionals in Poland. These factors inevitably constrain the extent to which the findings can be generalized, as they primarily reflect localized perspectives shaped by the Polish financial and regulatory context. Consequently, the results should not be interpreted as representative of broader populations or global trends without further validation. This is particularly important given the leap from a national survey to international regulatory recommendations, which requires larger, more diverse, and cross-national samples to provide robust and comparative evidence.

In addition, the study relies on self-reported data regarding knowledge, awareness, and opinions, elements that may be influenced by social desirability bias or disparities in technical understanding. Future research should incorporate complementary methods, such as in-depth expert interviews, case studies, or observational data, to enhance the reliability and depth of the findings. Furthermore, the absence of a longitudinal component limits the study’s ability to track how awareness and attitudes evolve in response to changing regulatory landscapes or major market disruptions. Long-term studies would offer richer insights into these dynamic shifts.

Moreover, the current research maintains a generalist approach to AML risks in cryptocurrencies. Future investigations could benefit from narrowing the focus to sector-specific areas, such as decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), or privacy-enhancing technologies like crypto mixers, which may pose distinct regulatory challenges. Finally, while this study identifies key policy priorities, future work should empirically evaluate the real-world effectiveness of implemented regulations, public awareness initiatives, and technological tools in mitigating illicit activities within digital asset ecosystems.

Importantly, gender- and age-related differences in risk perception were observed but not analyzed in depth in this study. While such an examination lies beyond the present scope, previous sociological and behavioral finance research suggests that demographic factors can meaningfully shape attitudes toward risk. The conclusions from these analyses indicate that a differentiated approach to the cryptocurrency market may be warranted depending on gender and professional status, which could have significant implications for further research on this market and its potential threats. Future studies would benefit from systematically exploring these dimensions to better understand how demographic characteristics influence perceptions and behaviors in the context of cryptocurrencies.

7. Summary

Cryptocurrencies present a complex duality in the context of money laundering: while their pseudonymous and decentralized features offer new channels for illicit finance, these same systems also provide a transparent and immutable transaction history that, when properly analyzed, can support AML efforts.

This study revealed that a substantial proportion of respondents acknowledge both the potential of cryptocurrencies to improve financial systems and the risk they pose for money laundering. A significant number support stronger regulatory involvement and broader adoption of virtual currencies, highlighting a nuanced understanding among professionals in the field.

The insights gathered contribute to the broader discourse on regulatory adaptation, the role of technology, and the importance of stakeholder awareness in developing effective strategies to combat financial crime in the digital era.