Beyond the Rulebook: Managing Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance

As financial firms expand across borders, multi-jurisdictional compliance becomes increasingly complex. Different jurisdictions bring different regulatory requirements, expectations and risks, raising an important question: how can a global business maintain consistent compliance standards without overlooking local obligations?

This was one of the central themes explored at Vision Forex Forum 2026, held on 8 October, where we joined industry leaders and compliance professionals to discuss the regulatory challenges facing financial services firms.

Our Head of Compliance & MLRO, Awais Amjad, participated in the panel Regulation 2026: What Is Keeping the Board Awake in the UAE & Beyond, sharing his perspective on conduct risk, managing compliance across multiple jurisdictions and the growing role of technology in regulatory oversight.

Across the discussion, one principle stood out:

Effective compliance is not about how many policies or systems a firm has. It is about how well those controls work in practice.

One Global Framework, Multiple Regulators

For international financial firms, operating across multiple jurisdictions requires more than meeting a collection of individual regulatory requirements.

Each market has its own licensing conditions, client protection standards, reporting obligations and supervisory expectations. Applying identical controls everywhere can overlook important local differences, while managing each jurisdiction entirely independently can create inconsistencies across the wider business.

So how do firms strike the right balance?

A strong global compliance framework establishes common standards for governance, risk management, oversight and accountability. Local entities can then adapt their controls to meet the regulatory requirements applicable to their activities.

The objective is not to make every jurisdiction operate identically, but to maintain consistent standards while respecting local requirements.

Why Clear Accountability Matters

Having the right policies in place is only part of the challenge.

As firms expand, responsibilities may become divided between central compliance functions, local entities and operational teams.

Without clearly defined ownership, important obligations can fall between them.

Consider a financial promotion developed centrally but distributed across several markets. Who confirms that it meets local regulatory requirements? Who approves the final version? And who monitors its use once published?

These responsibilities must be clearly established to avoid gaps between global policies and local execution.

For multi-regulated businesses, defining who is responsible for implementing, monitoring and escalating compliance matters is therefore just as important as developing the framework itself.

“Globalise the framework. Localise the risk.”

– Awais Amjad, EC Markets Head of Compliance & MLRO

A consistent global approach provides the foundation, but effective compliance depends on local expertise, clearly defined responsibilities and controls tailored to each jurisdiction.

Conduct Risk: Beyond the Compliance Department

One of Awais’s main areas of focus was conduct risk and why it must be treated as a business-wide responsibility.

While compliance functions establish oversight and provide guidance, conduct risk frequently emerges through everyday business activities.

Sales conversations, marketing campaigns, Introducing Broker relationships, client communications and complaints handling can all influence how clients experience a financial services provider.

And this creates an important distinction. A business can have compliant policies on paper while delivering a very different experience in practice.

“Conduct risk starts where the policy ends, in the actual client interaction.”

This means effective conduct risk management cannot rest solely with the Compliance department.

Business teams are responsible for their behaviour and decisions, Compliance provides oversight and challenge, and senior management ensures accountability.

What Client Complaints Can Reveal

Complaints are often viewed as individual cases that need to be investigated and resolved.

But they can also provide valuable insight into wider conduct risks.

Recurring complaints about client communications, onboarding processes or service expectations may indicate weaknesses that are not immediately apparent through routine compliance reviews.

By analysing patterns rather than treating complaints in isolation, firms can identify potential issues earlier, strengthen internal controls and address underlying causes.

The goal is not simply to resolve complaints efficiently, but to understand what they reveal about the business.

“Complaints are not just cases; they are conduct-risk intelligence.”

Building Compliance That Scales With the Business

As financial firms grow, so does the complexity of managing regulatory obligations.

Additional jurisdictions, larger client bases and increasing transaction volumes place greater demands on compliance teams.

But does business growth always need to result in a proportional increase in compliance headcount?

Not necessarily.

Another important discussion at Vision Forex Forum was the role of artificial intelligence, automation and regulatory technology, or RegTech, in supporting more scalable compliance functions.

Technology can help streamline repetitive and rules-based activities, including:

• Client screening and ongoing monitoring
• Risk scoring and transaction monitoring
• Regulatory reporting and case management
• Identifying exceptions and potential compliance issues

Automating appropriate processes can improve consistency, reduce manual workloads and allow compliance professionals to dedicate more time to complex matters requiring investigation and professional judgement.

However, technology is not a substitute for accountability.

Where Technology Meets Human Judgement

While automation can support compliance operations, certain responsibilities still require human oversight.

Interpreting regulatory requirements, investigating complex cases, challenging business decisions and determining appropriate escalation measures cannot simply be delegated to technology without appropriate controls.

Technology also introduces its own risks, from inaccurate data and poorly configured monitoring rules to insufficient oversight of automated decisions.

For compliance teams, the objective should therefore be to use technology to strengthen effectiveness and capacity without weakening accountability.

And for businesses planning further expansion, the priority should be establishing effective processes and controls before simply adding resources.

“Automate repetition, not judgment.”

Technology should make compliance more efficient and consistent, allowing professionals to focus on the decisions, investigations and risks that require human expertise.

Why Multi-Jurisdictional Regulation Matters

For forex and CFD brokers, operating across multiple jurisdictions introduces additional responsibilities around regulatory permissions, client protection, financial promotions, reporting and ongoing supervision.

A multi-regulated structure can support international operations, but holding regulatory licences across different jurisdictions does not automatically guarantee consistent compliance standards across a business.

Each regulated entity remains responsible for meeting the requirements applicable to its activities and jurisdiction.

The challenge is ensuring that regulatory obligations are reflected in everyday operations, from how clients are onboarded to how financial promotions are reviewed and complaints are handled.

At EC Markets, our multi-jurisdictional regulatory framework reinforces the importance of maintaining clear governance, local accountability and appropriate compliance oversight across the jurisdictions in which we operate.

The Bottom Line

The discussions at Vision Forex Forum reinforced an important point: regulatory compliance must evolve alongside the businesses it supports.

For multi-regulated firms, that means balancing global consistency with local accountability, recognising conduct risk as a business-wide responsibility and using technology to strengthen oversight.

Ultimately, effective compliance isn’t measured by the number of policies, systems or people supporting it.

It’s measured by how well those controls work in practice.