The main charges leveled against the AML/CTF are that it has increased financial exclusion, made it difficult for individuals to send remittances abroad, and has had negative impacts on Islamic charities and civil society in general. The criticism that the AML/CTF has increased social exclusion refers to the fact that banking institutions are now required to obtain identifying information about banking clients. Critics have pointed out that people from poor communities often do not possess identification papers such as passports and driver’s licenses. The author argues, however, that financial institutions are also advised not to turn away potential customers who can offer alternative forms of identification, thus diminishing the possible negative effects of the AML/CTF with regard to financial exclusion. The criticism that the AML/CTF has made it difficult for individuals to send remittances abroad focuses on the contention that AML/CTF policies have effectively criminalized the informal money transfer networks that have historically operated as legitimate and inexpensive financial systems for migrants to send money home. The author largely dismisses this criticism by noting the other available means of sending remittances abroad and pointing to the lack of evidence that migrants have had to turn to more expensive corporate systems. The third and fourth criticisms leveled against the AML/CTF in the United Kingdom are that it has been harmful to: (1) Islamic charities and (2) to civil society generally. The main claims are that CTF laws have made it legally risky to donate to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Islamic charities and that the AML/CTF may actually be part of a neo-liberal political agenda designed to promote neo-liberal globalization at the expense of other interests. The author notes that there is no empirical evidence to support either argument. 80 notes