Jordan’s draft amended Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Law for 2026 would bring virtual assets under a broader regulatory framework covering funds and financial transactions, while expanding authorities’ powers to trace, seize, freeze and confiscate assets.
اضافة اعلان
According to the draft law published by Jordan’s Legislation and Opinion Bureau, the proposed amendments would establish a broader asset-recovery framework, including, in certain cases, the confiscation of other property belonging to a convicted person if a court determines that it resulted from criminal conduct and its legitimate source has not been established.
The draft would also open the door to restrictions on cash payments. The National Committee for Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing would be authorized to recommend measures including requiring electronic payment for certain goods and services or setting a maximum amount that may be paid in cash. The draft does not specify a particular cash-payment limit.
The proposed legislation, which would amend Law No. 20 of 2021 on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing, contains 29 amendments covering new concepts and provisions, as well as changes to the powers of several authorities responsible for combating, investigating and supervising financial crimes.
Virtual Asset Service Providers as Reporting Entities
The draft adds virtual asset service providers to the “reporting entities” subject to the law and includes them in the definition of a customer. It also brings licensed or regulated virtual-asset activities in Jordan within the scope of the legislation.
It would redefine due diligence measures to include identifying and verifying information about customers and beneficial owners, the nature of their business, the purpose of the business relationship, and ownership and control structures. These measures would enable reporting entities to assess their exposure to financial-crime risks.
The National Committee would also be empowered to recommend measures to reduce the risks of money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Broader Asset-Recovery Framework
The draft introduces a definition of asset recovery covering the identification, tracing, valuation, seizure, freezing and confiscation of criminal property and property of equivalent value, as well as the implementation of related decisions, including the management, disposal, return or sharing of such assets with legitimate rights holders.
It also introduces the concept of criminal property, covering proceeds from money laundering and underlying offenses, related revenues and benefits, instruments used or intended to be used in such crimes, funds subject to money laundering, and funds used, intended or designated for terrorist financing or for terrorist acts or organizations.
The definition would also cover such property when it is owned or held by third parties, while preserving the rights of bona fide third parties.
Expanded Financial Investigations
The draft would give prosecutors the authority to conduct expanded financial investigations and identify, trace, seize and freeze funds when evidence indicates that they resulted from criminal conduct and are disproportionate to the suspect’s legitimate income.
It would also allow authorities to identify, trace and assess criminal property and property of equivalent value and to seize such assets without notifying the suspect before the seizure is carried out. An affected party would have the right to challenge the decision within seven days of becoming aware of it or being notified of its implementation.
The proposed legislation would allow confiscation to extend to other property belonging to a convicted person who was not convicted specifically of money laundering, terrorist financing or an underlying offense involving that property, if the court is satisfied from the evidence that the property resulted from criminal conduct and there is no proof establishing its legitimate origin.
In applying the provision, courts could examine whether the person’s assets are disproportionate to their legitimate income, whether the assets were acquired around the time an unlawful act was committed, and whether the convicted person belonged to an organized criminal group as defined by relevant international conventions and legislation.
The draft would also provide that dismissal of a public-rights case, suspension of prosecution, exemption from punishment, closure of case files or an in-absentia judgment would not prevent the judicial confiscation of criminal property or property of equivalent value in money laundering, underlying offenses or terrorist-financing cases.
Bona fide third parties would have the right to challenge confiscation decisions, while the Public Prosecution could continue proceedings and refer them to the competent court for confiscation purposes.
Expanded Investigative Powers
The amendments would expand investigative tools used to uncover money laundering, underlying offenses and terrorist-financing crimes. These tools would include undercover operations, interception of communications, access to computer systems and controlled delivery, subject to a written judicial order issued by the competent authority unless otherwise provided by specific legislation.
Regulation of Trusts and Legal Arrangements
The draft introduces a definition of legal arrangements, referring to relationships established by contract between two or more parties that do not create a separate legal personality, such as trusts or similar arrangements.
It also defines trusts as legal relationships in which property is placed under the control of a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary or for a specified purpose.
The proposed law would refer the transparency requirements for trusts and legal arrangements to regulations to be issued for that purpose. The regulations would determine the obligations of trusts, trustees and the authority responsible for monitoring compliance.
Violations could result in a fine of between JOD 2,000 and JOD 20,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both penalties.
Risk-Based Oversight of Nonprofit Organizations
The draft establishes a framework for nonprofit organizations, defining them as legal persons, arrangements or organizations primarily engaged in raising or distributing funds for charitable, religious, cultural, educational, social, solidarity or other philanthropic purposes.
It identifies supervisory and regulatory authorities responsible for mitigating terrorist-financing risks, including the Associations Registry for registered associations and the Companies Control Department for nonprofit companies.
These authorities would assess terrorist-financing risks facing nonprofit organizations, establish focused and proportionate risk-based measures, review them periodically and oversee compliance.
Nonprofit organizations and individuals acting on their behalf or for their benefit would be required to apply risk-based measures, beneficial-ownership disclosure procedures and other safeguards designed to prevent their misuse for illicit activities.
Expanded National Committee Membership
The draft proposes expanding membership of the National Committee for Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing to include the Secretary-General of the Judicial Council, the Amman Public Prosecutor, the Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court, the chairperson or a commissioner from the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission, and the Director of Preventive Security.
It would also expand the committee’s responsibilities to include setting national policy on combating money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of weapons of mass destruction proliferation, developing and regularly reviewing strategies, and approving implementation plans based on identified national risks.
The committee would be permitted to delegate some of its powers to its chairperson, provided the delegation is written and specific.
The draft would grant the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Unit legal personality as well as financial and administrative independence while remaining affiliated with the Central Bank governor. It would also grant the unit the authority to own and dispose of property, enter into contracts and initiate or defend legal proceedings.
The unit would be exempt from government taxes and fees, including general sales tax and stamp duties, and would have access to databases held by relevant authorities under memoranda of understanding, subject to governance, information-security and access-control requirements.
Transactions Could Be Suspended for Up to 10 Days
The draft would allow the unit to require reporting entities to suspend procedures and transactions related to a reported or notified transaction, or one subject to a request from a counterpart unit, for up to five business days. The suspension could be extended for an additional five business days if necessary.
The unit could also request equivalent action from counterpart financial intelligence units or competent authorities in other countries.
The draft would broaden information-sharing within corporate groups by replacing references to financial institutions with the wider concept of “reporting entities.”
It would also require competent authorities to receive and act on information and analysis provided by the unit, gather relevant evidence and provide feedback. The unit’s analyses could be used to support investigations in accordance with applicable legislation.
Courts would be able to request technical explanations from the person who prepared a report using modern communication technologies, while maintaining the confidentiality of the information and its source.
Tracking Assets Linked to Foreign Investigations
The draft would expand international cooperation on asset recovery to include identifying, tracing, valuing, freezing and seizing criminal property and property of equivalent value. It would allow related information to be exchanged automatically or upon request.
Authorities could also begin identifying and tracing property located in Jordan on their own initiative when information indicates that it is linked to a foreign investigation, in accordance with applicable legislation.
The Ministry of Justice would serve as Jordan’s central authority for receiving and sending mutual legal assistance requests and other international cooperation requests. It would also take measures to facilitate and expedite their implementation and update requesting authorities on their progress.
The Public Prosecution, through the Ministry of Justice, would be permitted to cooperate with non-Jordanian authorities on asset-recovery requests. Competent Jordanian authorities could also participate in multilateral networks and global asset-recovery networks.
