Global Financial Standards: Mauritian Resilience and Adaptation
Updated: Sep 16
Mauritius has spent decades developing its position as an international financial centre, connecting investment flows between Africa, Asia, Europe and other global markets.
For a relatively small economy, financial services also carry considerable domestic weight: financial and insurance activities grew by 5.0% in 2025 and are forecast by Statistics Mauritius to grow by a further 4.8% in 2026.
That growth brings opportunity, but also scrutiny. For international investors, banks, professional advisers and businesses operating across borders, the credibility of a financial centre increasingly depends on more than competitive tax rates or an attractive regulatory environment. Transparency, beneficial ownership, anti-money laundering controls, tax cooperation and the ability of regulators and law-enforcement agencies to demonstrate that those systems work in practice have become fundamental.
For Mauritius, the past several years have therefore represented both a challenge and an important period of adaptation.
From increased scrutiny to reform
In February 2020, Mauritius was placed under increased monitoring by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), commonly referred to as the FATF “grey list”.
The FATF identified a number of areas requiring improvement, including risk-based supervision, access to accurate beneficial ownership information, the investigation of complex money-laundering cases, supervision of the non-profit sector and implementation of targeted financial sanctions.
Mauritius subsequently undertook a substantial programme of regulatory and institutional reform.
In October 2021, FATF removed Mauritius from increased monitoring, citing the significant progress made in addressing the deficiencies set out in its action plan. The European Union followed by removing Mauritius from its list of high-risk third countries in 2022, concluding that the jurisdiction had strengthened the effectiveness of its AML/CFT framework and addressed the relevant technical deficiencies.
That was an important milestone, but it was not the end of the process.
International financial regulation is continuously evolving, and maintaining credibility requires jurisdictions to keep adapting as risks, technologies and financial products change.
Moving from compliance to resilience
That distinction is important. A jurisdiction can introduce legislation relatively quickly.
Demonstrating that regulators, financial institutions, professional firms and law-enforcement bodies consistently apply it is a much longer-term exercise.
Mauritius completed its second national Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment in 2025, covering developments and emerging threats through December 2024. The exercise forms part of a broader effort to identify where risks are changing and to target regulatory resources accordingly.
This has now led into the country's National Strategy for Combatting Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism 2026–2029. The strategy explicitly builds on the findings of the second National Risk Assessment and places greater emphasis on effectiveness, emerging financial-crime risks and the allocation of resources according to risk.
Mauritius is also preparing for its next mutual evaluation, expected in 2027. Current work includes reviews of risks relating to virtual assets, legal persons and legal arrangements, cross-border activity, tax evasion and proliferation financing.
That ongoing process matters because resilience is ultimately about being able to respond to the next risk, not simply correcting the last one.
New financial products bring new regulatory challenges
Technology illustrates that point particularly well.
Mauritius introduced the Virtual Asset and Initial Token Offerings Services Act in 2022, creating a regulatory framework for virtual-asset service providers and token offerings under the Financial Services Commission.
The framework sits alongside rules covering areas including custody of client assets, cybersecurity, risk management, disclosure and the transfer of virtual assets.
At the same time, Mauritian authorities have recognised that virtual assets introduce particular money-laundering and terrorist-financing vulnerabilities. Earlier national risk assessment work rated residual risks associated with virtual assets and virtual-asset service providers as very high, illustrating why innovation and regulatory development increasingly need to progress together.
For international businesses, that willingness to identify risk is arguably as important as the introduction of new financial products themselves.
Tax transparency is part of the same picture
Financial integrity extends beyond AML and terrorist-financing controls.
Mauritius participates in international tax-transparency initiatives and has continued to undergo OECD peer review. In the OECD's latest review of the exchange of information on tax rulings, covering 2024, Mauritius met all elements of the terms of reference and received no recommendations. Its implementation of Country-by-Country Reporting requirements has similarly been assessed as meeting the applicable terms of reference without recommendations for improvement.
For businesses using Mauritius as a base for international investment or cross-border operations, this wider alignment matters. Increasingly, counterparties, investors and financial institutions look not only at local law but at how comfortably a jurisdiction operates within international frameworks.
Why this matters for UK–Mauritius business
The direction of travel is particularly relevant to the UK's relationship with Mauritius.
The UK–Mauritius Strategic Partnership Framework announced in May 2025 identifies economic growth and trade as a priority and describes bilateral trade at that time as worth £1.2 billion annually. It also commits both governments to greater cooperation on illicit finance, strengthening Mauritius's role as a regional financial hub and increasing confidence in the country as an investment destination. The framework additionally envisages deeper links between Mauritian and British institutions, including institutions in the City of London.
For businesses working between the two markets, regulatory credibility therefore has a very practical significance.
Banks need confidence in counterparties. Investors need predictable structures. Professional-services firms need clear compliance frameworks. Businesses entering new markets need to understand that the institutions supporting them are operating to standards recognised internationally.
None of that eliminates risk. Nor should removal from a monitoring list be interpreted as a permanent certificate of approval. Financial crime evolves, international standards change and every major financial jurisdiction faces continued scrutiny.
The more meaningful measure is whether a jurisdiction can respond.
Mauritius's recent experience shows a financial centre that has been required to confront weaknesses, make reforms and continue strengthening its institutions. The next stage will be proving that those changes remain effective as the financial system itself evolves.
For a country positioning itself as both an international financial centre and a gateway for investment into Africa, that ability to adapt may prove one of its most important competitive strengths.