| name | navigating-regulations |
| description | Manages multi-jurisdiction regulatory strategy including licensing decisions, corporate structure optimization, AML/KYC program design, and regulated financial product compliance. Use when entering a new market, evaluating licensing requirements, designing compliance programs, assessing provider regulatory status, or when someone asks "can we operate X in Y country?"
|
| category | compliance |
| version | 1 |
| created | "2026-02-20T00:00:00.000Z" |
| updated | "2026-02-20T00:00:00.000Z" |
| author | [YOUR_NAME] |
| tags | ["regulatory","compliance","licensing","aml-kyc","corporate-structure","regulated-products"] |
| estimated_effort | varies (1 day single-jurisdiction, 2-3 weeks full compliance program) |
| triggers | ["Can we operate [product] in [country]?","What license do we need in [jurisdiction]?","Design our AML/KYC program","Assess compliance maturity","What's the regulatory status of [provider] in [jurisdiction]?","Optimize our corporate structure","Is there a regulatory sandbox in [country]?","What changed in [regulation]? How does it affect us?"] |
Skill: Regulatory & Compliance
Navigate your company's multi-jurisdiction regulatory landscape -- from licensing decisions and corporate structure optimization to AML/KYC program design and regulated product classification. Produces actionable compliance artifacts grounded in your actual corporate structure ([Holding Entity] + [Operating Entity A]) and product portfolio ([YOUR_PRODUCT_CATEGORY] via [Provider A/B/C]).
Framework Stack
Six frameworks, used individually or in combination. Not all are needed for every invocation.
Framework 1: MULTI-REGULATOR LICENSING DECISION -> "Where and how do we get licensed?"
Framework 2: HOLDING COMPANY STRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION -> "Is our corporate structure optimal?"
Framework 3: TRANSFER PRICING -> "Are intercompany flows defensible?"
Framework 4: RISK-BASED AML/KYC PROGRAM -> "How do we onboard clients safely?"
Framework 5: COMPLIANCE MATURITY MODEL -> "Where are we vs. where we need to be?"
Framework 6: REGULATED PRODUCT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK -> "How is each product classified per jurisdiction?"
Framework Selection Guide
| Scenario | Frameworks |
|---|
| "Can we operate in [country]?" | 1 + 6 |
| "Design our compliance program" | 4 + 5 |
| "Optimize corporate structure" | 2 + 3 |
| "Full regulatory readiness for new market" | 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 6 |
| "Provider status in [country]" | 6 |
| "Apply to regulatory sandbox" | 1 + 6 + Sandbox Playbook |
Framework 1: Multi-Regulator Licensing Decision
Purpose: Determine the optimal licensing path per jurisdiction -- own license, partnership, sandbox, or defer.
How to run: (1) Identify regulators, (2) Map license types for your products, (3) Score paths on cost/timeline/control/risk, (4) Identify partnership and sandbox alternatives, (5) Recommend with rationale.
Inputs: Target jurisdiction, products in scope, existing country research, legal counsel input, capital budget.
Deliverable 1: Licensing Decision Matrix
# Licensing Decision Matrix: [Country]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Legal counsel: [name/firm] | Products: [list]
## Regulator Overview
| Regulator | Full Name | Jurisdiction Over | Relevance to [YOUR_COMPANY] |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|----------------------------|
| | | | |
## License Options
| # | License Type | Regulator | Timeline (mo) | Cost ($) | Products Covered | Partnership Alt. | Sandbox |
|---|-------------|-----------|---------------|----------|-----------------|-----------------|---------|
| 1 | | | | | | Y/N | Y/N |
| 2 | | | | | | Y/N | Y/N |
## Path Comparison
| Dimension | Own License | Partner's License | Sandbox | Defer |
|-----------|-------------|-------------------|---------|-------|
| Time to market | | | | N/A |
| Capital required | | | | $0 |
| Margin impact | | Rev share: __% | | N/A |
| Control level | | | | N/A |
| Regulatory risk | | | | N/A |
## Recommendation
- **Path:** [Own License / Partner / Sandbox / Defer]
- **Rationale:** [2-3 sentences, stage-appropriate for your team size and funding]
- **Cost:** $[amount] | **Timeline:** [X months]
- **Key dependency:** [what must happen first]
- **Fallback:** [alternative if blocked]
Framework 2: Holding Company Structure Optimization
Purpose: Optimize [Holding Entity] (holdco) + local entities for tax, IP, and operational efficiency.
Your current structure:
[Holding Entity] -- Holdco
└── [Operating Entity A] -- Operating entity
How to run: (1) Map current structure, (2) For new jurisdictions: new entity vs branch vs partner, (3) Assess IP holding location, (4) Design intercompany flows, (5) Validate with tax counsel.
Deliverable 2: Corporate Structure Assessment
# Corporate Structure Assessment
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Scope: [optimization / new entity / restructure]
## Current Structure
[Holding Entity] -- Holdco | IP: [location] | Treasury: [location]
├── [Operating Entity A] | Functions: [list] | Revenue: [source]
└── [Future Entity] ([Country]) | Functions: [proposed] | Rationale: [why]
## Optimization Analysis
| Dimension | Current | Recommended | Action |
|-----------|---------|-------------|--------|
| IP Location | | | |
| Treasury | | | |
| Profit Allocation | | | |
| Tax Efficiency | | | |
## Tax Implications
| Flow | From | To | Nature | Tax Treatment | TP Method |
|------|------|----|--------|---------------|-----------|
| | | | | | |
Framework 3: Transfer Pricing
Purpose: Defensible intercompany pricing between holdco and local entities (OECD-compliant).
Key intercompany flows:
| Flow | Description | Method |
|---|
| Platform licensing | Holdco licenses IP to local entities | CUP or TNMM |
| Management services | Holdco strategic direction to locals | Cost-plus (5-15%) |
| Technical services | Dev resources across entities | Cost-plus or TNMM |
| Revenue share | Local collects, remits to holdco | Residual profit split |
Output: Transfer Pricing Policy document. Skill produces framework; tax counsel validates specifics.
Framework 4: Risk-Based AML/KYC Program
Purpose: Tiered AML/KYC program for your B2B client base, calibrated by risk and geography.
Deliverable 3: AML/KYC Program Design
# AML/KYC Program Design
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Version: [X.X] | Jurisdictions: [list]
## Client Risk Tiering
### Tier 1: Low Risk -- Regulated Fintechs with Own KYC
Profile: Licensed fintechs/neobanks with established KYC | CDD: Simplified
- Entity verification (incorporation proof) | UBOs >25% identified
- License verification with issuing authority | KYC program summary obtained
- Sanctions screening (OFAC, UN, EU, local) | Annual review cycle
### Tier 2: Medium Risk -- Brokerages, Semi-Regulated Entities
Profile: Regional brokers, digital brokers | CDD: Standard
- All Tier 1 + UBOs >10% with full ownership chain
- Compliance officer interview | Source of funds documented
- PEP screening on all UBOs/directors | Semi-annual review cycle
### Tier 3: High Risk -- New/Unregulated Entities
Profile: Pre-license startups, unregulated platforms | CDD: Enhanced (EDD)
- All Tier 1+2 + site visit/video inspection
- Business plan review | Third-party compliance audit required
- Senior management approval | Quarterly review cycle
## EDD Triggers (any tier)
- PEP or PEP associate | FATF high-risk jurisdiction
- Adverse media | Volume spikes >300% of declared expected
- Documentation refusal | Shell company indicators | Sanctions near-match
## Transaction Monitoring
| Rule | Threshold | Action |
|------|-----------|--------|
| Single transaction | $[amount] | Manual review |
| Daily volume | [X]% above expected | Manual review |
| Monthly cumulative | $[amount] or [X]% above | Escalate to CO |
| Rapid succession | [N] in [X] min | Auto-flag |
| Structuring pattern | Below threshold | Alert + SAR consideration |
## SAR Filing
| Jurisdiction | Authority | Threshold | Deadline |
|-------------|-----------|-----------|----------|
| [Market A] | [FIU Name] | Any suspicious activity | [X] hours |
## Record Retention: 5 years (ID, transactions, SARs, screening, risk assessments)
## Governance: CO [name] | Board reporting [freq] | Annual training | Annual review
Framework 5: Compliance Maturity Model
Purpose: Score current compliance posture vs target. Identify gaps, build improvement roadmap.
Deliverable 4: Compliance Maturity Scorecard
Scoring: 1=Ad hoc, 2=Initial, 3=Defined, 4=Managed, 5=Optimized
# Compliance Maturity Scorecard
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Next assessment: [date]
| # | Category | Sub-categories | Current | Target | Gap | Priority | Actions |
|---|----------|---------------|---------|--------|-----|----------|---------|
| 1 | **AML/KYC** | Onboarding, monitoring, SARs, sanctions | | | | | |
| 2 | **Data Privacy** | Local privacy law, GDPR readiness, DPAs, breach plan | | | | | |
| 3 | **Product Compliance** | Classification, provider monitoring, disclosures | | | | | |
| 4 | **Operational Risk** | BCP, vendor risk, incident response, insurance | | | | | |
| 5 | **Cyber Security** | Access controls, encryption, pen testing, SOC 2 | | | | | |
| 6 | **Corporate Governance** | Board oversight, policies, training, audit | | | | | |
Summary: Avg current ___/5 | Avg target ___/5 | Critical gaps (>=2): [list]
## Improvement Roadmap
### 0-3 months (critical gaps) | 3-6 months (minimum viable) | 6-12 months (audit-ready)
| Action | Category | Current->Target | Owner | Cost |
|--------|----------|-----------------|-------|------|
Stage-Appropriate Targets
| Stage | AML/KYC | Privacy | Product Compliance | Ops Risk | Cyber | Governance |
|---|
| Pre-seed | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Seed | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Series A | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Series B+ | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
Framework 6: Regulated Product Regulatory Framework
Purpose: Classify each product per jurisdiction and map provider compliance. Every product may have distinct regulatory classification implications depending on the jurisdiction.
How to run: (1) Classify each product per jurisdiction (security, virtual asset, fund unit, derivative, exempt), (2) Map provider status, (3) Identify custody requirements, (4) Assess restrictions, (5) Determine disclosure obligations.
Deliverable 5: Regulatory Risk Register
# Regulatory Risk Register: [Country/Region]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Owner: [name] | Review: [monthly/quarterly]
| # | Risk | Likelihood (1-5) | Impact (1-5) | Score | Mitigation | Monitor Freq | Owner |
|---|------|-------------------|-------------|-------|------------|-------------|-------|
| 1 | | | | | | | |
Scoring: L x I = Score. Critical >=15, High 10-14, Medium 5-9, Low 1-4
## Top Risks -- Detail
### Risk #[X]: [Name]
- Root cause: | Current mitigation: | Proposed mitigation:
- Trigger event: | Contingency plan:
Deliverable 6: Provider Compliance Map
# Provider Compliance Map
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
## Provider x Jurisdiction Matrix
| Provider | Product | Home | License | [Market A] | [Market B] | [Market C] | [Market D] | [Market E] | [Market F] |
|----------|---------|------|---------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| [Provider A] | [Product] | [Country] | [regulatory status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] |
| [Provider B] | [Product] | [Country] | [regulatory status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] |
| [Provider C] | [Product] | [Country] | [regulatory status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] |
Status: Available | Restricted | Pending | Blocked | Unknown | N/A
## Per-Provider Risk
For each: Home regulation | Key restrictions | Dependency risk (L/M/H) | Alternative if blocked
## Systemic Risks
| Risk | Description | Mitigation |
|------|-------------|------------|
| Single-provider dependency | Product unavailable if provider blocked | 2+ providers per category |
| Regulatory contagion | Enforcement in one jurisdiction affects all | Monthly status monitoring |
| License revocation | Provider loses home license | Contractual unwind rights |
Deliverable 7: Regulatory Change Monitor
# Regulatory Change Monitor
Last updated: [YYYY-MM-DD] | Review: Bi-weekly
| # | Jurisdiction | Regulator | Regulation | Status | Impact | Action | Deadline | Owner |
|---|-------------|-----------|-----------|--------|--------|--------|----------|-------|
| 1 | [Market A] | [Regulator A] | [Regulation X] | Active | | | | |
| 2 | [Market A] | [Regulator A2] | [Regulation Y] | Active | | | | |
| 3 | [Market B] | [Regulator B] | [Regulation Z] | | | | | |
| 4 | [Market C] | [Regulator C] | [Regulation W] | | | | | |
| 5 | [Market D] | [Regulator D] | [Regulation V] | | | | | |
| 6 | [Market E] | [Regulator E] | [Regulation U] | | | | | |
| 7 | [Market F] | [Regulator F] | [Regulation T] | | | | | |
## Recent Changes (90 days) | Upcoming Deadlines
| Date | Jurisdiction | Change | Impact | Action Taken |
Regulatory Sandbox Playbook
For markets where sandbox is the recommended path. Identify which of your target markets have active sandbox programs.
Sandbox Comparison
| Dimension | [Sandbox Program A] | [Sandbox Program B] | [Sandbox Program C] |
|---|
| Focus | [area] | [area] | [area] |
| Duration | [months] | [months] | [months] |
| Client/volume caps | [limits] | [limits] | [limits] |
| Application window | [status] | [status] | [status] |
| Path to full license | [description] | [description] | [description] |
| Precedents | [names] | [names] | [names] |
Sandbox Application Prep
For each application: (1) Company overview (entity, team, existing status), (2) Innovation description (products, technology, consumer benefit), (3) Test plan (duration, clients, volume, scope), (4) Risk management (consumer protection, AML/KYC per Deliverable 3, cyber, wind-down), (5) Exit strategy (full license path, partnership fallback, migration plan).
Company-Specific Context
Legal Documents on File
| Document | Location |
|---|
| [Holding Entity] incorporation docs | [your legal docs folder] |
| [Operating Entity A] formation docs | [your legal docs folder] |
| Formation certificates | [your legal docs folder] |
| Legal counsel proposal | [your legal docs folder] |
| Key regulations | [your regulations folder] |
| Jurisdiction analysis | [your legal docs folder] |
Existing Country Research
| Country | Location | Key regulatory files |
|---|
| [Market A] | [your research folder] | 03-regulatory, 04-sandbox, 05-licensing |
| [Market B] | [your research folder] | 03-regulatory, 04-sandbox, 05-licensing |
| [Market C] | [your research folder] | 03-regulatory, 04-sandbox, 05-licensing |
| [Market D] | [your research folder] | 03-regulatory, 04-sandbox, 05-licensing |
Key Regulatory Facts
[Market A]: [Key regulation name] | [Relevant sandbox] | [Fastest licensing path] | [Entity status]
[Market B]: [Key regulation name] | [Main regulatory blocker] | [Market opportunity size]
[Market C]: [Provider availability] | [Sandbox status] | [Licensing cost] | [Competitive landscape]
[Market D]: [Sandbox program] as most viable path | [Precedents] | [License cost estimate]
Delegation Points
| Topic | Delegate To | When |
|---|
| Market scoring, entry sequencing | planning-market-entry (skill 04) | Before this skill -- market prioritized first |
| Licensing cost projections | modeling-finances (skill 10) | After Deliverable 1 estimates costs |
| Provider deal structuring | closing-deals (skill 08) | After Deliverable 6 confirms availability |
| Strategic market decisions | steering-strategy (skill 15) | If findings change market attractiveness |
| Client onboarding in sales process | launching-go-to-market (skill 07) | After Deliverable 3 defines requirements |
How to Invoke This Skill
Scenario A: "Can we operate [product] in [country]?" -- Check existing research, run Frameworks 1+6, produce GO/CONDITIONAL/BLOCKED recommendation.
Scenario B: "Design our compliance program" -- Run Framework 4 (AML/KYC) + Framework 5 (maturity scorecard), produce improvement roadmap.
Scenario C: "Full regulatory workup for [country]" -- Read existing research, then Frameworks 1+2+3+4+6, produce Deliverables 1-5. Use Sandbox Playbook if applicable.
Scenario D: "Optimize corporate structure" -- Frameworks 2+3 (structure + transfer pricing). Requires tax counsel in holdco and local jurisdictions.
Scenario E: "Regulation changed" -- Update Deliverable 7, assess impact, update affected deliverables. Flag to steering-strategy if material.
Scenario F: "Apply to sandbox" -- Verify sandbox is recommended (Deliverable 1), use Sandbox Playbook, reference Deliverable 3 for risk management.
Research Protocol
- Check existing legal docs -- Your legal/compliance folder
- Check country research -- Your market research folder for each target jurisdiction
- Check jurisdiction analysis -- Any existing jurisdiction comparison documents
- Web research -- WebSearch for current regulatory status, enforcement, sandbox updates
- Flag for counsel -- Legal interpretation questions marked "requires counsel review"
- Save findings -- Store in country research folder or regulations folder
Quality Checklist
Decision Log
| Decision | Resolution | Rationale |
|---|
| Regulatory sandbox playbook | YES, included | Multiple target markets have relevant sandbox programs |
| AML/KYC tiering | Risk-based, 3 tiers | Proportional to B2B model; Tier 1 clients have own KYC |
| Compliance maturity targets | Stage-gated (pre-seed to Series B+) | Early-stage startup should not aim for SOC 2 on day one |
| Transfer pricing methods | Cost-plus for services, TNMM for licensing | Standard for tech holdco; requires counsel validation |
| Provider Compliance Map scope | All providers x all target regions | Provider blockage can kill a market entry |
