She also emphasizes the need for financial education, yet she acknowledges that many institutions of high learning simply do not teach their graduates about payments and banking when they matriculate from university. According to Viktoria, awareness needs to be raised in the general population as to how banks think and manage money; how money moves is key, she says. A corollary to that is that companies need to understand cash flows and banking requirements. The discussion ends with her sharing her thoughts on what can be done to make the existing payment systems fairer in both the developed and developing world. A common refrain is the lack of access to fintech. Following that, we have a lengthier chat with veteran Miami-based accountant and fraud investigator Stanley Foodman on an article he penned for LinkedIn entitled “Crypto’s Compliance Crossover: Are You Ready for Multi-Framework Reporting?”[1] In it, he argues: “The line between digital assets and traditional finance no longer exists. With CARF and CRS 3.0 now in effect, crypto is fully inside the regulatory perimeter, and financial institutions across LATAM need to be ready. This isn’t just a reporting update. It’s a fundamental shift in how compliance must operate across jurisdictions, asset types, and internal systems.” In his piece, Stan breaks down the most common gaps in crypto compliance today – namely: · Incomplete capture of wallet ownership and sender/receiver data  · Misaligned AML/KYC and tax due diligence processes  · Gaps in cross-border policy coverage  · Limited interoperability across compliance tools and departments  Beyond just where institutions are falling behind, the op-ed piece delves into how they can get ahead, coupled with what readiness really looks like under CARF and CRS 3.0. Looking ahead, he points to the need for strategic priorities for compliance readiness. “To meet new demands of crypto compliance, institutions must go beyond surface-level solutions. A true response to CARF requires structural alignment across policy, data, staffing, and governance,” he said. According to Stan, top compliance priorities should include:  · Integrated Policy Frameworks: Expand your internal policies to treat crypto assets as part of the same risk landscape as traditional holdings. This includes wallet traceability, decentralized exchanges exposure, and automated risk scoring.   · Unified Data Architecture: Break down internal silos. Create a centralized compliance data environment where AML, tax, and digital asset reporting teams can access a consolidated view of client behaviors, across fiat and blockchain transactions.   · Enhanced Client Onboarding & Monitoring:  Update onboarding processes to capture crypto wallet IDs, source of funds, blockchain transaction history, and risk triggers. Ongoing monitoring must include both on-chain and off-chain behavior.  · Staff Training & Cross-Functional Collaboration:  Equip your teams to understand crypto regulations and compliance risks. Encourage collaboration between compliance officers, IT, legal, and product leads to bridge technical and regulatory knowledge gaps.   · Cross-Border Regulatory Mapping: Align your reporting framework with FATF, CARF, CRS 3.0, and relevant domestic disclosure regimes. For institutions operating in multiple jurisdictions or serving cross-border clients, a cohesive compliance map is critical. Stan also shares a little about his background and how his training as an accountant aided him during his career in law enforcement, as well as the dividends such public service has paid him in his private practice. He reflects on what initially drew him to the accounting profession. Ultimately, he concludes that the line between digital assets and traditional finance no longer exists. Looking to compliance leadership in the digital future, Stan remarks: “The institutions that will thrive in the new era aren’t just adding crypto checkboxes to their CRS tools. They’re embedding digital assets into their entire compliance DNA, governance, strategy, and infrastructure.”