From Enforcement to Integrity: 5 Takeaways Defining Global Compliance in 2025 

AFME’s European Compliance and Legal Conference 2025 set the tone for where compliance is headed in an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. The conference served as a reality check: Enforcement is tightening, expectations are rising, and firms can no longer afford to treat compliance as a box-ticking exercise.  

What stood out most was the shift in emphasis—from punishment to prevention, from rules to culture, and from technology as a tool to technology as a true partner. 

Here are five key takeaways that capture the pulse of the conversations. 

1. Enforcement Builds Market Trust

Opening with a stark reminder, Therese Chambers, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA shared, “When things go wrong, people remember.” She stressed that enforcement isn’t just about punishing bad actors, it’s about creating trust in the system. That requires speed, transparency, and above all, impact. 

With over 100,000 authorizations cancelled in 2024 (a 20% YoY increase), the FCA is showing it won’t hesitate to act. But enforcement is only one side of the story. Regulators are leaning into prevention, proactivity, and collaboration (e.g. safe testing methods, proactive reporting, etc.). They’re mostly focused on transparency over perfection––they want honesty, not secrecy. Chambers underlined/emphasized, “Compliance may cost, but crime will cost you more.” 

“Compliance may cost, but crime will cost you more.”

Therese Chambers, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA

Beyond enforcement, Chambers pushed for a broader cultural reset: resilient markets built not on fear of consequences, but on shared commitment to integrity. From crypto to AI, the FCA is opting for collaboration over unilateralism, recognizing that risk—and opportunity—crosses borders. 

The handling of internal and regulatory investigations drew strong consensus throughout the entire conference. It’s no surprise that proactive transparency beats secrecy every time. Regulators don’t want to hear about issues from the third parties—or weeks after the fact. They want collaboration, clear scope, and visible commitment to remediation. Elisabeth Bremner, Partner at CMS noted, culture isn’t just about preventing misconduct. It’s also about owning mistakes and demonstrating integrity in how you address them. 

2. Simplification is the New North Star

Day 1 started off strong with the big the buzzword being “simplification.”  

Regulators and firms both want convergence, less duplication, and clearer frameworks. However, the definition of simplicity differs, and comes into conflict with industry calls for clearer and more detailed guidelines. EU, UK, US—each pursuing its own version of streamlining. Tanya Panova of the European Commission hinted at long timelines and even longer debates. 

Meanwhile compliance teams must translate principles into practice, often facing either a lack of consistency or even directly conflicting regulations across jurisdictions.  

Although this patchwork system can be frustrating, firms can find ways to turn it to their advantage. It creates leverage by pushing regulators into a balancing act. Larger firms, in particular, might capitalize on conflicting requirements to gain a competitive edge, relocating certain operations to jurisdictions with looser or less consistent oversight. 

As Edwin Schooling Latter, Head of Compliance at Mizuho, shared, “There is competition between regulators, which means firms also hold the power.” In other words, fragmentation doesn’t only raise costs, it can also be used to shape market behavior and regulatory frameworks alike.  

“There is competition between regulators, which means firms also hold the power.”

Edwin Schooling Latter, Head of Compliance at Mizuho

3. Rethinking 3LoD and Compliance Culture

The three lines of defense (3LoD) model, is under question in today’s environment. The thought-provoking question, raised by Barclays’ Christopher Singh, is whether the 3LoD compliance structure, created before the invention of the internet, is still fit-for-purpose today, or whether the time has come to shift toward capabilities and collaboration over rigid lines and titles.  

The debate ran across the event, with other speakers stressing that independence and oversight are important, but culture, trust, and communications between functions are critical.  

Furthermore, a culture where people feel safe to speak up is more powerful than strict lines on paper. Especially because, as Singh articulated, “The what of compliance is expanding, and the how is getting stricter.” 

“The what of compliance is expanding, and the how is getting stricter.”

Christopher Singh, Group Head of CWR Compliance, Barclays

4. Data Accountability is Non-Negotiable

A personal highlight of the conference was the insight-driven, “Spotlight on Surveillance” panel, moderated by our own Director of Surveillance and Governance Strategy, Alex de Lucena, as he focused on how good surveillance starts with good data. Or, as Mark Cross from StoneX, put it, “Out of everything I deal with, data is the one thing that keeps me up at night.” 

Data quality isn’t solely an IT problem anymore; compliance is also accountable. Incomplete data means an incomplete story. Early warning systems, formal data governance, and cross-functional accountability are non-negotiable. And regulators aren’t expecting perfection—they know data gaps and system hiccups are inevitable. What they want is transparency and collaboration. 

“Out of everything I deal with, data is the one thing that keeps me up at night.”

Mark Cross, Director, Central Compliance, StoneX

As the FCA’s Robert Mangham clarified, if a firm claims it has no data issues, “that’s a red flag.” A firm that reports no issues at all can raise just as many concerns as one that hides problems, because the absence of disclosures suggests hidden behaviors. 

5. Technology Must Augment, Not Replace

To no surprise, technology dominated most of the conference’s discussions, especially when it came to the pressures of adoption and accountability. Everyone agreed GenAI will transform the compliance function.  

But how do you preserve the judgment layer if the entry-level roles disappear? Singh flagged this as an existential concern: If AI erases the training ground, what happens to the future leaders of compliance? 

If AI erases the training ground, what happens to the future leaders of compliance?

Christopher Singh, Group Head of CWR Compliance, Barclays

Meanwhile, upskilling is urgent. Soft skills, data fluency, and cross-functional thinking are no longer nice-to-haves. They’re prerequisites. 

As firms are constantly under pressure to do more with less, the cost conversation is shifting from headcount to capacity—and from outputs to outcomes. 

What Now for Compliance Teams in Highly-Regulated Industries? 

If AFME 2025 made one thing clear, it’s that compliance is more critical than ever to satisfy regulators—but it can’t stop at just checking boxes. True compliance goes further. It’s about surfacing what matters, when it matters, and using it to build resilient markets founded on trust and integrity. 

Firms that invest in the right data, the right talent, and the right technology will not only meet regulatory expectations but also help define the next chapter of compliance. The biggest shift ahead? Moving from simply preventing what goes wrong to proactively reinforcing what’s right—promoting integrity, strengthening culture, and shaping markets people can believe in. 

To see how Shield is staying ahead of the trends and delivering real solutions,  schedule a conversation with our team.