Too often, women are overlooked in investigations, undercounted in statistics, and ignored in prosecutions. But the reality is far more complex.
At the 18th Professional Conference of Prosecutors in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we spoke with Sanja Dakić Petrović, researcher at the AIRE Centre, where the publication Women and Illicit Finance in the Western Balkans: Expanding the Frontiers of Knowledge and Action was presented. This is one of the first regional studies to uncover the hidden gender dynamics of financial crime across Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Serbia.
Drawing on real data and interviews with judges, prosecutors, financial institutions, and civil society, the report reveals how women are instrumentalised as fronts for money laundering, coerced into crime through abuse or dependence, and in some cases emerge as key organisers of complex financial schemes.
Your research challenges long-held misconceptions about women’s roles in illicit finance. What does data tell us?
Sanja Dakić Petrović: The data is clear. Women are present across the full chain of illicit finance. Not as a curiosity, but as actors with distinct roles shaped by gender norms and economic reality.
We documented five recurring roles.
First, “fronts” or formal owners. Women are registered as company owners or asset holders while men control operations. This reduces scrutiny. We saw this in Albania and Kosovo, where properties and businesses were placed in women’s names to shield male controllers. In Serbia, women handled administrative work for international transfers while the network leaders stayed invisible.
Second, facilitators and money mules. Women moved cash, opened accounts, or relayed messages. In Montenegro, women carried cash in private cars between group members to avoid detection. In Serbia, women transported large sums across borders as couriers.
Third, organisers and leaders. Less common, but real. An Albanian case involved a woman running a drug trafficking operation end-to-end—procurement, logistics, and finance. In North Macedonia, a woman designed and managed a large investment fraud, leveraging perceptions of being “non-threatening” to delay suspicion.
Fourth, as victims who are instrumentalised by networks. Coercion is frequent. Women are pressured by partners or relatives. A woman in Bosnia and Herzegovina—herself trafficked—was forced to smuggle cash under threats to her family’s status. In North Macedonia, rural women were threatened into letting their accounts be used for cross-border fraud, then prosecuted as if acting freely.
Fifth, witnesses. Women often hold crucial information. A trafficking victim in Serbia testified against an organised group while facing sustained intimidation. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, an accountant’s report on suspicious transactions helped uncover a laundering scheme once she was protected.
The pattern is not random. Gender stereotypes are used tactically. The belief that women are “less suspicious” becomes an operational cover for crimes.
What puts women into these roles? Is it choice, pressure, or context?
Sanja Dakić Petrović: It is context first. Then pressure. Sometimes choice sits inside that pressure.
Economic dependence is a primary driver. Limited access to stable jobs and the prevalence of informal work increase vulnerability. We documented a widow in Bosnia and Herzegovina who sold illicit cigarettes to feed her children. In Kosovo, women agreed, or were pushed, to register assets or companies in their names because male relatives controlled family income.
Stereotypes are exploited. Groups assign women tasks that benefit from lower scrutiny. In Montenegro, a woman was selected to transport drugs because police were less likely to stop her car. In Albania, women executed inter-company transfers to mask illicit flows as routine business.
Family ties are decisive. Obligation and threat often blur. In Serbia, a woman knowingly processed administrative tasks for a family business, moving illicit funds because her livelihood depended on it. In Kosovo, a brother compelled his sister to use the family firm for laundering, with social ostracism as leverage.
Broader norms matter. Patriarchal structures and tolerance of gender-based violence reduce agency and increase exposure. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a woman used her role as a family matriarch to coordinate a smuggling ring and remained invisible until communications were intercepted. In parts of Kosovo, weak oversight within some religious settings enabled the recruitment of women under the guise of duty or charity.
The takeaway is simple. Gender is not an afterthought. It shapes opportunity, risk, and control in illicit finance.
Where do institutions fall short: police, prosecutors, courts, and financial institutions, such as banks and notaries?
Sanja Dakić Petrović: The gaps are systemic and repeat across the region.
Law enforcement and judiciary. Cases are framed around male “main actors.” Women are misclassified. Victims under coercion are prosecuted. Active female participants are downplayed as “helpers.” In Serbia, logistics roles performed by women in a drug case were disregarded as secondary, which distorted culpability analysis. In Albania, a woman who formally owned a construction firm used for laundering received a lighter sentence, but the assessment failed to weigh her socioeconomic dependence and actual decision-making power accurately. Both under- and over-criminalisation occur, often in the same ecosystem.
Financial sector. Risk systems are rarely gender-sensitive. Due diligence flags the transaction, but not the gendered pattern behind it. In Serbia, a bank filed suspicious transaction reports on female account holders, but regulators lacked trained staff to pursue gendered indicators; later, those accounts were linked to drug trafficking. In Kosovo, legal loopholes let luxury assets be registered in women’s names while controlled by men. This hides beneficial ownership.
Data and training. The biggest barrier is measurement. Gender-disaggregated data is limited or inconsistent. One finding illustrates the scale: in Serbia, women represented roughly 20% of account holders tied to suspicious transaction reports but only 5% of those prosecuted for related offences. That drop-off signals both blind spots in ianvestigations and potential misclassification.
Training is lagging. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, many judges and prosecutors have not been trained to evaluate how socioeconomic dependence and coercion shape women’s roles, which affects charging and sentencing. In Montenegro, anti-money-laundering training often omits gender-specific risk indicators. The result is predictable: missed organisers, punished victims, and resilient networks.
What proven practices should the Western Balkans adopt right now?
Sanja Dakić Petrović: We point to three external examples that show measurable impact.
Canada’s Project Protect (2016). Banks, law enforcement, and NGOs co-designed gender-specific red flags for human-trafficking finance. Within the first year, suspicious transaction reports rose by about 60% in those cases. When you look with the right indicators, you find more.
United Kingdom, prosecution guidance. Guidance for gang-related crime instructs prosecutors to assess coercion, grooming, and control when women and girls are involved. This pushes gender analysis into charging decisions and sentencing recommendations.
Corporate fraud research (China). Studies show firms with women in top finance roles (e.g., CFO) report a lower incidence of corporate fraud—around three percentage points. This suggests governance benefits linked to diversity in financial oversight. It is not a universal cure, but it indicates a risk-reduction pathway.
For the Western Balkans, the first steps are clear:
- Collect gender-disaggregated data across police, prosecution, courts, and FIUs.
- Build gender-specific indicators into AML/CFT systems.
- Mandatory training for investigators, prosecutors, judges, and compliance staff.
- Victim-safety protocols tied to financial investigations.
- Beneficial ownership enforcement that targets shielding through gendered asset registration.
If the judiciary and financial institutions in the region act on your findings tomorrow, what changes should we expect in one year?
Sanja Dakić Petrović: Three measurable shifts.
First, better case mapping. With gender-disaggregated data, investigators will identify more network nodes rather than just the visible male leaders. Expect an increase in linked-person analyses that correctly place women as organisers, facilitators, or victims under duress.
Second, stronger financial red flags. Banks will escalate cases where the asset title sits with women, but transactions and control points to male relatives or partners. You should see a rise in the quality of referrals to FIUs, not just volume.
Third, fairer outcomes in court. Prosecutors will document coercion with evidence, not assumptions. Courts will separate agency from compulsion using clear criteria. We will still see convictions where women led or knowingly facilitated schemes. We will also see declinations or alternative measures where credible coercion is proven. That is justice, not leniency.
When institutions apply a gender lens, networks lose a key disguise. Detection improves. Prosecutions become more accurate. Victims face less harm.
