Panama (PA)
Lead Signal
Panama enters this monitoring cycle with its first comprehensive baseline assessment, and the standout finding is a persistent structural gap: the country still has no dedicated licensing regime for non-bank payment institutions or e-money issuers. The Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (SBP) maintains a registry of Means of Payment/E-Money Issuers, but supervises those entities solely for anti-money-laundering, counter-terrorist-financing and weapons-proliferation-financing purposes under Law 23 of 2015 — not under any prudential or conduct-of-business licensing framework. A World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program note flags that this creates public confusion between AML registration and genuine licensing, a distinction with direct commercial-relevance consequences for market entry and correspondent-bank due diligence. Panama's legislature moved to address the gap on 13 January 2026 with Anteproyecto de Ley No. 314, the Ley Marco Integral de Tecnologías Financieras, which would create Panama's first dedicated licensing categories for virtual-asset service providers, payment-service providers and e-money issuers, with SBP as primary supervisor and the Financial Analysis Unit (UAF) receiving suspicious-activity reports. The bill has not been enacted, and no forward committee or plenary date has been sourced this cycle.
Running in parallel, Panama's AML/CFT architecture has been actively consolidating since the country's delisting from the FATF grey list on 27 October 2023 (after listing since June 2019) and the European Commission's removal of Panama from its high-risk list on 14 March 2024. SBP Rule 1-2026 (16 January 2026) updated customer-due-diligence, enhanced-due-diligence and transaction-monitoring obligations, revoking four prior rules dating to 2000-2015, and Acuerdo No. 3-2026 (29 May 2026) codified a graduated sanctions methodology classifying infractions as minor, serious or very serious. Together these instruments replace a more ad hoc enforcement practice with a more legible compliance architecture — read by market participants as improving legal certainty even as the near-term effect on fintech-client onboarding by Panamanian correspondent banks appears to be tightening rather than loosening.
Outlook
Two forward markers dominate the Panama picture. First, Draft Law 314 is the mechanism most likely to close the licensing gap identified in W1a/W1b, but its passage and timeline are unconfirmed this cycle — a re-verification point for next cycle. Second, SBP Rule 1-2026's compliance tightening is likely to produce a near-term period of narrower fintech-client onboarding by correspondent banks even as the broader post-delisting trend favours improved international access; how these two forces net out for non-bank payment entrants over the coming cycles is the central open question for Panama's payments market structure.
Other Developments
Panama's crypto and stablecoin framework remains in a legislative vacuum entrenched by litigation. Bill No. 697, the 2021-22 crypto framework, was partially vetoed by President Cortizo in June 2022 on AML grounds while Panama sat on the FATF grey list, then declared entirely unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in July 2023 — nullifying the country's first comprehensive attempt at crypto regulation and resetting the legislative clock. A successor, Bill No. 247, introduced in 2025, proposes VASP licensing tied to UAF registration, FATF-aligned KYC/AML compliance and a National Council for Digital Assets, but remains pending before the National Assembly with no confirmed forward timeline.
On market structure, Panama's digital-wallet competition remains concentrated among bank-sponsored platforms — Yappy (Banco General), Nequi (Banistmo), Kuara (Global Bank-Banesco-MMG) and Zinli (Banco Mercantil) — reflecting the gravitational pull of a banking sector hosting 50 to 80-plus licensed institutions. Illustrating the difficulty non-bank challengers face, telco entrant Tigo Money soft-launched in August 2023 and had shut down by March 2024. Meanwhile instant-payments infrastructure continues to expand: Telered's ACH Xpress platform had 16 banks integrated by end-2023, executing 1.4 million transactions worth $18 million, with plans to add ten more participants. Dollarization without FX controls continues to reinforce Panama's role as a regional trade-finance and correspondent-banking hub — International Banking Center external deposits grew 14.72% to US$48,097 million, with Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic together accounting for over 58% of those funds. An IMF working paper finds CAPDR digital remittance costs, though declining, remain above the global average.
Operational resilience continues to run on a pre-DORA architecture: SBP and Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores agreements on outsourcing, electronic-banking risk and IT-risk management govern the sector, with cloud services located outside Panama requiring prior SBP approval or SMV notification, and no consolidated cyber-resilience statute equivalent to the EU's DORA yet exists. On payment rails, all Panamanian banks operate through Telered's Clave debit-card system and the traditional ACH alongside bank-specific instant-transfer platforms, with Visa and Mastercard accepted through bank-operated gateways; no bespoke interchange-regulation or card-surcharging statute was identified. PCI-DSS certification, tokenization and 3-D Secure authentication are treated as market expectations for scheme-connected processors rather than statutory mandates. Absent a central bank, Banco Nacional de Panamá's clearinghouse operates as the country's most important settlement system, with the World Bank's Financial Sector Assessment finding that settlement-risk management lacks sophistication and participants can run largely uncollateralized net debit positions — a structural vulnerability that also frames correspondent-banking access considerations.
Consumer-protection architecture remains split and incomplete: ACODECO handles only limited banking-consumer matters under Law 45 of 2007 (misleading advertising, credit records, warranty, capped at direct decisions up to US$5,000), while other banking complaints go to SBP directly, and no dedicated APP-fraud mandatory-reimbursement regime or non-bank e-money safeguarding regime exists. Banco General's voluntary addition of an immediate-refund function to Yappy after user complaints illustrates reliance on industry practice rather than statutory rule. Commercial/fintech investment activity, meanwhile, looks modest against Panama's regional-hub role: aggregate 2025 equity funding fell to $14.4 million across four rounds, down from $18.4 million across nine rounds the prior year, with individual deal values undisclosed in available sources.
Cross-Monitor Connections
Panama's AML/CFT trajectory — the FATF/EU delisting and its consolidation through SBP Rule 1-2026 and Acuerdo 3-2026 — carries illicit-finance significance beyond WPM's payments-market-structure remit; that underlying analysis is flagged to FIM, which is better placed to assess the AML/CFT substance, while WPM here carries only the Sentinel-fed provenance summary relevant to payments supervision. Similarly, the 2022 veto of Bill 697 was explicitly grounded in AML/FATF grey-list concerns, and any illicit-finance-use analysis of Panama's pending VASP framework (Bill 247) properly belongs to FIM rather than WPM.
Legal accessibility by product
overall:Domains
14 regulatory modules · click to expand the full sub-briefLicensing, Authorisation & Market Access
HighPanama's Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (SBP) publishes a registry of Means of Payment and E-Money Issuers, but this registry is an anti-money-laundering, counter-terrorist-financing and weapons-proliferation-financing registration under Law 23 of 2015 rather than a prudential or conduct-of-business licence.
Conduct, Safeguarding & Promotions
AssessedSBP Rule 1-2026, issued 16 January 2026, updates customer-due-diligence, enhanced-due-diligence, transaction-monitoring and internal-control obligations for all SBP-supervised entities, revoking prior rules 10-2015, 1-2013, 8-2000 and 10-2000.
Stablecoins & Digital Money
AssessedPanama's most consequential crypto-regulatory event remains the 2022-23 nullification of Bill No.
Operational Resilience & Critical Infrastructure
AssessedPanama's operational-resilience framework rests on pre-DORA agreements issued by SBP and the Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores: Acuerdos 009-2005, 006-2011, 003-2012 and 005-2018 cover outsourcing, electronic-banking risk and IT-risk management respectively.
Scheme & Network Compliance
AssessedAll Panamanian banks operate through Telered's Clave debit-card system and the traditional ACH, alongside newer bank-specific instant-transfer platforms such as Yappy.
Payment Corridor Dynamics
AssessedPanama remains fully dollarized with no foreign-exchange controls, functioning as a regional trade-finance and correspondent-banking hub.
Full per-domain detail — all 14 modules
Panama has no dedicated EMI/PSP licensing statute in force. The Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (SBP) supervises banks and, under general Banking Law powers, non-bank payment entities primarily for AML/CFT purposes; a dedicated fintech licensing framework (Draft Law 314) was introduced in January 2026 but is not yet enacted. MICI licenses money remittance operators separately.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access
Panama's Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (SBP) publishes a registry of Means of Payment and E-Money Issuers, but this registry is an anti-money-laundering, counter-terrorist-financing and weapons-proliferation-financing registration under Law 23 of 2015 rather than a prudential or conduct-of-business licence. A World Bank Financial Sector Assessment Program technical note corroborates that this arrangement creates public confusion between AML registration and genuine licensing, with only four fintechs formally registered as Financial Obligated Parties according to secondary commentary. For non-bank payment institutions and e-money issuers, the practical effect is legal uncertainty that complicates market entry and correspondent-bank due diligence, since counterparties cannot rely on the registry as evidence of prudential supervision.
That gap is the direct backdrop to Anteproyecto de Ley No. 314, the Ley Marco Integral de Tecnologías Financieras, introduced to the National Assembly on 13 January 2026. The bill proposes Panama's first dedicated licensing categories for virtual-asset service providers, payment-service providers and e-money issuers, designating SBP as primary prudential supervisor while routing suspicious-activity reports to the Financial Analysis Unit (UAF). If enacted, it would be the first dedicated market-access gateway for non-bank PSPs and EMIs in Panama; however, no forward committee or plenary date has been sourced this cycle, and no parallel or competing fintech legislative proposals were identified in this cycle's research.
Outlook
Draft Law 314's progression is the single most consequential forward marker for Panama's licensing architecture: enactment would resolve the AML-registration-versus-licensing confusion that currently burdens non-bank market entrants, while continued stasis would leave SBP's Law 23/2015 registry as the only touchpoint for non-bank payment supervision. This module should be re-verified next cycle for committee or plenary movement.
Panama has no dedicated EMI/PSP licensing statute in force. The Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá (SBP) supervises banks and, under general Banking Law powers, non-bank payment entities primarily for AML/CFT purposes; a dedicated fintech licensing framework (Draft Law 314) was introduced in January 2026 but is not yet enacted. MICI licenses money remittance operators separately.
Evidence — 5 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Means of Payment and/or E-Money Issuers | Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá [T1] Panama Fintech Law 2026 | Global Law Experts [T3]
Panama has no dedicated conduct-of-business or safeguarding regime for non-bank payment/e-money providers; consumer and conduct protection for banking relationships defaults to the SBP and ACODECO under general banking and consumer-protection law, with AML documentary/onboarding obligations tightened via SBP Rule 1-2026.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Conduct, Safeguarding & Promotions
SBP Rule 1-2026, issued 16 January 2026, updates customer-due-diligence, enhanced-due-diligence, transaction-monitoring and internal-control obligations for all SBP-supervised entities, revoking prior rules 10-2015, 1-2013, 8-2000 and 10-2000. Secondary commentary anticipates a period of narrower fintech-client onboarding while institutions absorb the new compliance requirements, a conduct-adjacent effect that sits alongside the module's core safeguarding question.
No dedicated conduct-of-business or safeguarding regime exists for non-bank e-money customers. ACODECO handles only limited banking-consumer matters under Law 45 of 2007 — misleading advertising, credit records and warranty claims — while other banking complaints go directly to SBP; consumer-facing safeguarding of e-money balances is not addressed by either regulator, an absence that reflects the lack of a dedicated regime rather than a confirmed permissive rule.
Outlook
The bank-PSP/non-bank-PI-EMI distinction is acute here: banks absorb Rule 1-2026's CDD/EDD tightening within existing conduct frameworks, while non-bank e-money issuers have no conduct-of-business or safeguarding regime to absorb it into at all. Enactment of Draft Law 314 would be the natural vehicle to close this conduct/safeguarding gap for non-bank entities; absent that, the gap persists as a standing feature of Panama's regime.
Panama has no dedicated conduct-of-business or safeguarding regime for non-bank payment/e-money providers; consumer and conduct protection for banking relationships defaults to the SBP and ACODECO under general banking and consumer-protection law, with AML documentary/onboarding obligations tightened via SBP Rule 1-2026.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
SBP Updates Key Provisions to Combat AML/CFT/CPF through Rule 1-2026 | Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá [T1] Frequently Asked Questions | Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá [T1]
Panama has no comprehensive crypto/stablecoin law in force. A 2021-22 crypto bill (Bill 697) was partially vetoed by President Cortizo in June 2022 over AML concerns and was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in July 2023, leaving digital assets in a legal grey area; a renewed Bill No. 247 (2025) is pending before the National Assembly.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Stablecoins & Digital Money
Panama's most consequential crypto-regulatory event remains the 2022-23 nullification of Bill No. 697: partially vetoed by President Cortizo in June 2022 on anti-money-laundering grounds while Panama sat on the FATF grey list, then declared entirely unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in July 2023, resetting the country's legislative effort at comprehensive crypto regulation to zero. The Supreme Court's ruling sided fully with the President's veto objections, leaving no comprehensive crypto framework in force and establishing a legal precedent that now weighs on any future legislative attempt, including the pending Bill No. 247.
A successor bill, No. 247, introduced in 2025, proposes licensing of virtual-asset service providers registered with the Financial Analysis Unit (UAF), mandates FATF-aligned KYC/AML compliance, and creates a National Council for Digital Assets. Its status remains pending before the National Assembly, with no confirmed forward enactment date sourced this cycle; the bill's fate should be re-verified next cycle.
Outlook
Litigation precedent now functions as an implicit filter on Panama's crypto/stablecoin ambitions: any future VASP or stablecoin framework must clear the constitutional bar the Supreme Court set in 2023. Bill 247's progression — or continued stasis — is the key marker to track next cycle; illicit-finance-use dimensions of any eventual VASP regime fall to FIM rather than WPM.
Panama has no comprehensive crypto/stablecoin law in force. A 2021-22 crypto bill (Bill 697) was partially vetoed by President Cortizo in June 2022 over AML concerns and was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in July 2023, leaving digital assets in a legal grey area; a renewed Bill No. 247 (2025) is pending before the National Assembly.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Panamanian President Partially Vetoes Crypto Regulation Legislation [T3] Panama Crypto Law Aims To Make The Country A Bitcoin Hub [T3]
W3AssessedOperational Resilience & Critical Infrastructure
see this theme across all jurisdictions →5 claimsPanama's operational-resilience framework for regulated financial entities rests on a set of pre-DORA SBP agreements covering outsourcing, electronic banking, and IT risk management, with cloud-service use outside Panama requiring prior SBP/SMV approval or notification; there is no consolidated cyber-resilience statute equivalent to DORA.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Operational Resilience & Critical Infrastructure
Panama's operational-resilience framework rests on pre-DORA agreements issued by SBP and the Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores: Acuerdos 009-2005, 006-2011, 003-2012 and 005-2018 cover outsourcing, electronic-banking risk and IT-risk management respectively. Cloud services located outside Panama require prior SBP approval or SMV notification, and no consolidated cyber-resilience statute equivalent to the EU's Digital Operational Resilience Act exists; comparators such as DORA are cited by market commentary for contrast only, not as a benchmark Panama has adopted.
Absent a central bank, Banco Nacional de Panamá's clearinghouse functions as the country's most important settlement system for retail payments. The World Bank's Financial Sector Assessment finds that settlement-risk management here lacks sophistication, with participants able to run largely uncollateralized net debit positions — a structural feature carried through directly into this monitor's W12 correspondent-banking and settlement analysis.
Outlook
Absent a DORA-equivalent statute, Panama's operational-resilience posture will likely continue to develop incrementally through SBP/SMV rule updates rather than a single consolidating law; monitor for any successor instrument that might formally supersede the 2005-2018 Acuerdo series.
Panama's operational-resilience framework for regulated financial entities rests on a set of pre-DORA SBP agreements covering outsourcing, electronic banking, and IT risk management, with cloud-service use outside Panama requiring prior SBP/SMV approval or notification; there is no consolidated cyber-resilience statute equivalent to DORA.
Evidence — 5 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Panama AWS Compliance Center - Financial Services for Cloud - AWS [T3] FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PANAMA FINANCIAL SECTOR ASSESSMENT Prepared By [T1]
Card-scheme rails in Panama run through the domestic Telered/Clave debit network alongside Visa and Mastercard acceptance via bank-operated gateways; PCI DSS compliance is expected of payment gateways and processors but there is no bespoke Panamanian interchange-regulation or surcharging statute identified.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Scheme & Network Compliance
All Panamanian banks operate through Telered's Clave debit-card system and the traditional ACH, alongside newer bank-specific instant-transfer platforms such as Yappy. Visa and Mastercard are accepted via bank-operated gateways, and no bespoke interchange-regulation or card-surcharging statute was identified in this cycle's research; the gap is recorded as no-source rather than confirmed non-existence.
PCI-DSS certification, tokenization and 3-D Secure authentication are flagged by market commentary as expected functionalities for scheme-connected payment gateways, though no bespoke statutory mandate for these controls was identified; this finding rests on a single indicative source rather than confirmed regulatory text.
Outlook
The absence of a confirmed interchange-regulation statute remains an open research question rather than a settled finding of deregulation; this module should be re-tested against any Draft Law 314 secondary provisions on scheme access if the bill advances.
Card-scheme rails in Panama run through the domestic Telered/Clave debit network alongside Visa and Mastercard acceptance via bank-operated gateways; PCI DSS compliance is expected of payment gateways and processors but there is no bespoke Panamanian interchange-regulation or surcharging statute identified.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Yappy evoluciona para ser una plataforma de pagos independiente | Revista Martes Financiero [T3] Pasarelas de Pago para E-commerce en Panamá: Una guía completa [T3]
Panama is a fully dollarized economy with no foreign-exchange controls, functioning as a regional trade-finance and correspondent hub; the dominant retail corridor is US-Panama remittances, while digital/mobile remittance fees remain persistently higher across Central America/Panama/Dominican Republic (CAPDR) than the global average despite a declining trend.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Payment Corridor Dynamics
Panama remains fully dollarized with no foreign-exchange controls, functioning as a regional trade-finance and correspondent-banking hub. International Banking Center external deposits grew 14.72% to US$48,097 million, with Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic together accounting for over 58% of these funds, corroborating commentary on dollarization's attractiveness for cross-border platforms.
An IMF Working Paper covering the CAPDR region finds a clear trend of declining remittance fees at any level of digitalization, though costs remain higher for CAPDR countries relative to other global regions — meaning Panama's dominant US-Panama retail corridor still carries an above-average cost burden even as digital channels expand.
Outlook
Panama's hub role looks structurally durable given dollarization and continued IBC deposit growth, but the CAPDR remittance-cost gap versus global benchmarks is unlikely to close quickly; corridor-level fee dynamics warrant continued tracking alongside the correspondent-access questions raised in W12.
Panama is a fully dollarized economy with no foreign-exchange controls, functioning as a regional trade-finance and correspondent hub; the dominant retail corridor is US-Panama remittances, while digital/mobile remittance fees remain persistently higher across Central America/Panama/Dominican Republic (CAPDR) than the global average despite a declining trend.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Panama Consolidates Its Position as a Solid and Trusted Financial Hub as of February 2026 | Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá [T1] Digital Money and Remittances Costs in Central America, Panama, and the Dominican Republic in: IMF Working Papers Volume 2022 Issue 238 (2022) [T1]
Panama's payments industry is dominated by an oversized International Banking Center of roughly 50-80 licensed banks, with domestic digital-wallet competition concentrated among a handful of bank-sponsored platforms (Yappy/Banco General, Nequi/Banistmo, Kuara/Global Bank-Banesco-MMG, Zinli/Banco Mercantil), rather than independent non-bank fintech challengers.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Industry Structure & Commercial Dynamics
Panama hosts 50 to 80-plus licensed banks, and domestic digital-wallet competition is concentrated among bank-sponsored platforms — Yappy (Banco General), Nequi (Banistmo), Kuara (Global Bank-Banesco-MMG) and Zinli (Banco Mercantil) — rather than independent non-bank fintech challengers.
Illustrating the structural difficulty non-bank challengers face against bank distribution advantages, telco entrant Tigo Money (Millicom) soft-launched in August 2023 but was shut down by March 2024 — a single-source but illustrative market-structure signal about the durability of incumbent-bank wallet dominance.
Outlook
Bank-sponsored wallets are likely to retain their structural advantage absent a dedicated non-bank licensing pathway; Draft Law 314's fate is therefore also a market-structure variable, not only a compliance one, since a workable non-bank licence could lower the distribution barrier that defeated Tigo Money.
Panama's payments industry is dominated by an oversized International Banking Center of roughly 50-80 licensed banks, with domestic digital-wallet competition concentrated among a handful of bank-sponsored platforms (Yappy/Banco General, Nequi/Banistmo, Kuara/Global Bank-Banesco-MMG, Zinli/Banco Mercantil), rather than independent non-bank fintech challengers.
Evidence — 5 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Banking in Panama Guide | centralamerica.com [T3] Nequi y Yappy se disputan clientes bancarios en Panamá [T3]
The most consequential recent payments-adjacent litigation is the Supreme Court's 2023 nullification of the vetoed crypto law; on the supervisory-enforcement side, the SBP operates a public sanctions register for banking/trust/AML breaches and has just codified (Acuerdo 3-2026) a graduated sanctions methodology to replace prior ad hoc practice.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Legal & Litigation
The most consequential payments-adjacent litigation event remains the Supreme Court's July 2023 ruling declaring the entirety of crypto bill No. 697 unconstitutional, siding with President Cortizo's 2022 veto objections and nullifying Panama's first comprehensive attempt at crypto regulation.
More recently, SBP Acuerdo No. 3-2026 (29 May 2026) established uniform criteria classifying AML/CFT infractions as minor, serious or very serious, weighing duration, recidivism, harm and institution size, replacing what had been ad hoc sanctioning practice; this instrument is sourced only via T3 secondary reporting, with no primary SBP gazette text retrieved this cycle.
Outlook
Both instruments together signal a more codified, legible enforcement posture from SBP, which should reduce litigation unpredictability going forward; a primary-text citation for Acuerdo 3-2026 should be sought next cycle to upgrade its sourcing above T3 secondary reporting.
The most consequential recent payments-adjacent litigation is the Supreme Court's 2023 nullification of the vetoed crypto law; on the supervisory-enforcement side, the SBP operates a public sanctions register for banking/trust/AML breaches and has just codified (Acuerdo 3-2026) a graduated sanctions methodology to replace prior ad hoc practice.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Panama Crypto License: How to Obtain a Crypto License in Panama [T3] Panamá pone orden a la forma de evaluar los incumplimientos bancarios - Infobae [T3]
Merchant acquiring in Panama is delivered through bank-affiliated gateways (Banco General/Yappy Comercial, Banistmo, BAC Credomatic, Credicorp) plus independent processors (Wompi, Pagadito, Paguelofacil), with standard percentage-plus-tax merchant discount pricing and hybrid local-acquirer/global-PSP models used for multi-currency and tourism-sector acceptance.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Merchant Acquiring & Risk
Yappy Comercial, Banco General's merchant-facing product, charges a commission of 1% plus ITBMS (minimum US$0.02) per transaction received, collected daily against that day's total received amount — a primary merchant-pricing disclosure drawn directly from the bank's own site.
Foreign PSPs can operate in Panama but typically must partner with a licensed local entity or establish local presence; tourism-sector merchants commonly combine local acquiring banks such as Banco General with global PSPs such as Worldline and Adyen to achieve multi-currency acceptance.
Outlook
Merchant acquiring in Panama looks set to continue running on bank-affiliated rails blended with global PSP partnerships for cross-border acceptance, a structure that suits the tourism-heavy merchant base but leaves foreign PSPs dependent on local bank partnership as a market-access condition.
Merchant acquiring in Panama is delivered through bank-affiliated gateways (Banco General/Yappy Comercial, Banistmo, BAC Credomatic, Credicorp) plus independent processors (Wompi, Pagadito, Paguelofacil), with standard percentage-plus-tax merchant discount pricing and hybrid local-acquirer/global-PSP models used for multi-currency and tourism-sector acceptance.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Yappy - Banco General Panamá [T3] Accepting Payments in Panama: PSPs, Compliance & Fees [T3]
Panama's payments innovation is led by bank-sponsored real-time mobile wallets built on the Telered/ACH Xpress rails, with Yappy the dominant platform and growing interoperability across banks; roughly 93% of the population is reported to use mobile banking, and Caja de Ahorros runs an agency-banking program for financial inclusion in remote areas.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Product Innovation & Market Development
Telered's ACH Xpress instant-payment integration had 16 banks integrated by end-2023, executing 1.4 million transactions worth $18 million, with a stated goal of adding ten more banks under the renamed 'Xpress' platform — a clear signal of expanding bank-to-bank interoperability.
State savings bank Caja de Ahorros runs an agency-banking programme for financial inclusion, though agent locations remain absent from the most remote communities such as Darién province, and national postal operator COTEL's financial-service potential remains underutilised for lack of investment, per a World Bank/IMF payments technical note.
Outlook
Instant-payments interoperability is on a clear expansionary trajectory, but the inclusion gaps in the most remote provinces suggest the benefits of Telered's Xpress rollout are concentrated in already-banked urban populations; closing the agency-banking and postal-channel gap remains an unresolved financial-inclusion question.
Panama's payments innovation is led by bank-sponsored real-time mobile wallets built on the Telered/ACH Xpress rails, with Yappy the dominant platform and growing interoperability across banks; roughly 93% of the population is reported to use mobile banking, and Caja de Ahorros runs an agency-banking program for financial inclusion in remote areas.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Nequi y Yappy se disputan clientes bancarios en Panamá [T3] EL GRUPO DEL BANCO MUNDIAL PANAMÁ PROGRAMA DE EVALUACIÓN DEL SECTOR FINANCIERO [T1]
Consumer protection for payments splits between ACODECO (general commercial/advertising complaints under Law 45 of 2007, competence up to US$5,000, US$30,000 for vehicles) and the SBP (banking-specific consumer complaints); there is no dedicated APP-fraud mandatory-reimbursement regime, and refund mechanics for misdirected instant-payment transfers rely on voluntary bank features rather than statutory liability rules.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Consumer Protection & APP Fraud
Under Law 45 of 2007, ACODECO can decide directly only on consumer complaints up to US$5,000 (US$30,000 for vehicles under Law 14 of 2018); beyond those thresholds consumers must pursue ordinary courts, and no dedicated APP-fraud mandatory-reimbursement regime exists in Panama's regulatory architecture.
Because Panamanian banking regulation prevents banks from unilaterally debiting a client's account for a misdirected transfer without authorization or a court order, Banco General added a voluntary immediate-refund function to Yappy after user complaints — illustrating reliance on industry practice rather than a statutory misdirected-payment liability regime.
Outlook
Without a statutory misdirected-payment or APP-fraud reimbursement rule, consumer protection for e-money customers will likely continue to depend on voluntary industry practice such as Yappy's refund feature rather than an enforceable regulatory entitlement, a gap Draft Law 314 does not appear to address directly.
Consumer protection for payments splits between ACODECO (general commercial/advertising complaints under Law 45 of 2007, competence up to US$5,000, US$30,000 for vehicles) and the SBP (banking-specific consumer complaints); there is no dedicated APP-fraud mandatory-reimbursement regime, and refund mechanics for misdirected instant-payment transfers rely on voluntary bank features rather than statutory liability rules.
Evidence — 4 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Panama and consumer Protection in the Digital Era - FABREGA MOLINO [T3] Banco General 'Yappy' Makes an Important Update - Newsroom Panama [T3]
W11ConfirmedAML/CFT & Financial Crime (Sentinel.gi-fed)
Sentinelsee this theme across all jurisdictions →6 claimssentinel.baseline: Panama's core AML/CFT instrument is Law 23 of 2015 (as amended), supervised by the SBP for financial obligated subjects and enforced via the newly codified Acuerdo 3-2026 sanctions methodology; Panama was FATF grey-listed June 2019 and formally delisted 27 October 2023, with the EU following in removing Panama from its high-risk list in 2024/2025.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
AML/CFT & Financial Crime (Sentinel.gi-fed)
Per Sentinel.gi's feed, FATF excluded Panama from its grey list on 27 October 2023 (having listed the country since June 2019) after determining that strengthened AML/CFT controls were in place; the European Commission followed by removing Panama from its high-risk list on 14 March 2024, corroborated by two independent T1 anchors — the FATF country page and the EC removal document.
Sentinel.gi further reports that SBP Rule 1-2026 (16 January 2026) updates due-diligence, enhanced-due-diligence and transaction-monitoring obligations, and that Acuerdo 3-2026 (29 May 2026) codifies a graduated sanctions methodology — together consolidating Panama's post-delisting AML/CFT control architecture. WPM carries this only as provenance summary; original illicit-finance analysis is routed to FIM via cross-monitor flags rather than analysed here.
Outlook
Panama's AML/CFT architecture reads as consolidating rather than static: the delisting removed the external-pressure trigger, but SBP has since chosen to keep tightening domestic controls through Rule 1-2026 and Acuerdo 3-2026, an approach likely to continue improving Panama's standing with FATF-style peer review even as it narrows onboarding at the margin; full illicit-finance substance remains for FIM's review, not WPM's.
sentinel.baseline: Panama's core AML/CFT instrument is Law 23 of 2015 (as amended), supervised by the SBP for financial obligated subjects and enforced via the newly codified Acuerdo 3-2026 sanctions methodology; Panama was FATF grey-listed June 2019 and formally delisted 27 October 2023, with the EU following in removing Panama from its high-risk list in 2024/2025.
Evidence — 6 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- True
Event Findings
Sources
Panama [T1] SBP Updates Key Provisions to Combat AML/CFT/CPF through Rule 1-2026 | Superintendencia de Bancos de Panamá [T1]
Panama has no central bank and relies on Banco Nacional de Panamá as settlement bank for domestic clearing; correspondent-banking access has historically been sensitive to FATF/EU listing status, with post-2023 delisting improving relationships even as SBP Rule 1-2026 signals renewed compliance tightening to correspondent partners in the US and Europe.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Correspondent Banking, Settlement & Access
Absent a central bank, Banco Nacional de Panamá operates the BNP clearinghouse, Panama's most important settlement system, with final settlement of net retail-payment positions effected in commercial-bank money on BNP's books; the World Bank's Financial Sector Assessment finds this settlement-risk management lacks sophistication, and participants can run largely uncollateralized net debit positions — the module's analytical spine is precisely this bank-versus-non-bank access asymmetry.
Panama's FATF delisting was expected to improve correspondent relationships and credit-line access; SBP Rule 1-2026 now signals renewed compliance tightening toward US/European correspondents, likely producing narrower fintech-client onboarding even as academic research on the grey-listing episode finds de-risking was more selective than the sweeping-exit narrative suggests, a nuance corroborated by continued IBC deposit growth despite the tightening.
Outlook
The net direction for correspondent access is cautiously positive, but the two forces — post-delisting relief and Rule 1-2026 compliance tightening — will likely offset each other in the near term, with non-bank PSPs and EMIs most exposed to any narrowing since they lack the dedicated licensing standing that banks already hold; this asymmetry remains the module's central watch item.
Panama has no central bank and relies on Banco Nacional de Panamá as settlement bank for domestic clearing; correspondent-banking access has historically been sensitive to FATF/EU listing status, with post-2023 delisting improving relationships even as SBP Rule 1-2026 signals renewed compliance tightening to correspondent partners in the US and Europe.
Evidence — 5 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- SB
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PANAMA FINANCIAL SECTOR ASSESSMENT Prepared By [T1] Panama Fintech Law 2026 | Global Law Experts [T3]
W13PossibleCommercial Intelligence (M&A, Investment & Product)
see this theme across all jurisdictions →3 claimsPanama's fintech investment activity remains modest in absolute terms relative to its role as a financial hub: trailing-12-month equity funding has been in the low tens of millions of dollars across a handful of rounds, with limited M&A exits in the fintech vertical, alongside the January 2026 legislative event of Draft Law 314's introduction.
No periodic updates yet · baseline brief is current.
Read the full sub-brief
Commercial Intelligence (M&A, Investment & Product)
Aggregate 2025 equity funding in Panama's fintech sector fell to $14.4 million across four rounds (through December), down from $18.4 million across nine rounds the prior year; individual deal values are not publicly disclosed. As of January 2026, only 67 of Panama's 707 fintech companies had received funding, and the sector recorded just one acquisition in the year through July 2025 against three historically — again with individual deal values not publicly disclosed.
The standout 2026 market-development milestone is legislative rather than transactional: Panama's Anteproyecto de Ley No. 314 was introduced to the National Assembly on 13 January 2026, proposing dedicated licensing categories for VASPs, PSPs and EMIs for the first time — tracked here for commercial-intelligence context as a market-development event rather than a funding or M&A transaction.
Outlook
Commercial signal for Panama's fintech sector is modest and dashboard-tier this cycle, with the Draft Law 314 introduction the only material market-development event; individual funding and M&A deal-level detail remains structurally under-indexed given aggregator-only source coverage, a recognised bias-correction area for future cycles.
Panama's fintech investment activity remains modest in absolute terms relative to its role as a financial hub: trailing-12-month equity funding has been in the low tens of millions of dollars across a handful of rounds, with limited M&A exits in the fintech vertical, alongside the January 2026 legislative event of Draft Law 314's introduction.
Evidence — 3 structured claims
Key facts
- Content Tier
- D
- Sentinel Feed
- False
Event Findings
Sources
Startups in Panama - 2026 Latest Funding Rounds, Trends and News - Tracxn [T3] FinTech in Panama - 2026 Market & Investments Trends - Tracxn [T3] Panama Fintech Law 2026 | Global Law Experts [T3]