Crypto in Africa: Chainalysis puts illicit flows below 1%

Crypto addresses identified as illicit received at least $154 billion in 2025, according to Chainalysis. That is a record in absolute terms, but still less than 1% of attributed on-chain volume. TRM Labs puts the figure at close to $158 billion, with a slightly higher share of 1.2%. These figures challenge the idea that criminal activity defines crypto use, particularly in Africa, where payments and cross-border transfers are growing rapidly.

Crypto crime is rising in dollar terms, not proportionally

The $154 billion figure should first be considered without downplaying it. Illicit activity increased sharply in 2025. Bref Crypto had already documented the industrialization of scams and fraudsters’ growing use of AI.

Chainalysis puts the annual increase in funds received by illicit addresses at 162%. However, most of this rise came from sanctioned entities, whose volumes jumped by 694%. Stablecoins alone accounted for 84% of identified illicit activity.

The key point lies in comparing the methodologies. Chainalysis places the illicit share below 1%, while TRM Labs arrives at 1.2%. This is not necessarily a contradiction: the two companies do not use exactly the same scope when calculating the relevant total volume. TRM also changed its methodology in 2026 to exclude more technical, arbitrage or internal transactions that could artificially inflate the denominator.

The right takeaway is therefore not “zero crime.” It is this: even after a record year for on-chain crime, legitimate activity accounts for the overwhelming majority of measured flows.

In Africa, the real issue remains the cost of payments

This distinction takes on particular significance across the continent.

Between July 2024 and June 2025, sub-Saharan Africa received more than $205 billion in on-chain value, an increase of around 52% year on year, according to Chainalysis. The region was then the third-fastest-growing crypto market in the world. Retail transfers also account for a larger share there than in several developed markets.

This development is consistent with the growth of stablecoins in African cross-border payments.

Why does this use case exist? Part of the answer lies in traditional costs.

In the third quarter of 2025, the World Bank still calculated that sending $200 to sub-Saharan Africa cost 8.46% on average, or nearly $17. The region remains the most expensive in the world for receiving international remittances, far above the 3% target set by the United Nations.

In this context, judging an infrastructure solely through its criminal uses provides an incomplete picture. A stablecoin can be used to launder funds. It can also enable a worker to transfer value to their family without waiting several days.

Technology does not determine intent.

Regulate the players rather than conflating use cases

This does not mean that crypto in Africa would benefit from downplaying the risks.

Quite the opposite. As volumes grow, compliance requirements become increasingly important: customer identification, transaction monitoring, the Travel Rule, cooperation with authorities, and oversight of on- and off-ramps to national currencies.

South Africa is already following this approach. Pretoria is preparing stricter oversight of cross-border crypto transfers rather than imposing a blanket ban on the technology.

The reasoning then becomes more interesting: distinguish criminals who use a financial rail from ordinary customers who use the same rail.

It is also important to avoid overly simplistic comparisons with the banking system. The methods used to measure global money laundering and those used to identify illicit transactions on blockchains are different. Directly comparing a crypto percentage with a percentage of global GDP can create a misleading sense of precision.

Public blockchains’ distinctive feature nevertheless remains their traceability. A Bitcoin or stablecoin transaction can be tracked across multiple addresses long after it has been executed. Cash, shell companies or fictitious commercial invoices leave traces of a different nature.

This is probably where the debate becomes more mature. According to Chainalysis, less than 1% of activity being illicit does not mean crypto is risk-free. It simply means that crime is no longer enough to describe what this infrastructure has become.