Have you ever considered what it takes to become an authorised Fintech firm? If so, you understand that there are various requirements and areas that you must consider. To assist you in understanding how to navigate the regulatory licensing process we’ve prepared this article, which covers:
- Capital Requirements & Financial Safeguards
- Anti-Money Laundering (AML) & KYC Compliance
- Operational Resilience & Risk Management
- Consumer Protection & Fund Safeguarding Rules
- Regulatory Reporting & Compliance Monitoring
- The Role of Core Banking Software in PSP licensing
There is no doubt PSP licensing is a complex, yet crucial milestone for PayTech companies aiming to satisfy regulatory requirements and establish themselves as trusted payment service providers (PSPs). However, the PSP licensing process itself is highly complex, requiring strict compliance with various standards – and palpable consequences for inability to do so.
To navigate PSP licensing successfully, PayTech firms must adhere to 5 key regulatory pillars: capital requirements, AML & KYC compliance, operational resilience, consumer protection, and regulatory reporting, each one of those playing its own equally significant role. Last but not least we’ll discuss how core banking software may make or break your institution – by either assisting you in compliance or making your life a living nightmare due to the inability to monitor risks, and crucial metrics and produce regulatory returns on demand.
Capital Requirements & Financial Safeguards
Why Capital Requirements Matter in PSP Licensing
Capital adequacy is one of the cornerstone regulatory requirements for PSP licensing. Financial regulations impose significant capital requirements to ensure that PSPs are able to maintain financial stability, mitigate liquidity risks, have a financial buffer in case of distress, and provide protection for consumer funds. Without adequate capital reserves, a PSP may struggle to sustain operations – or settle liabilities when they become due, being unable to survive under stressed circumstances.
Capital Thresholds for PSP Licensing Across Regions
Across the world and jurisdiction, the minimum capital requirements for PSPs to obtain their licenses vary vastly. They depend on the jurisdiction, local or regional regulations, type of license, and the risk levels associated with the services PayTechs aim to provide and list on the licensing application.
European Union (EU)
In the European Union, for instance, there are two key Directives that define capital requirements based on the PSP type – Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2) and Electronic Money Directive 2 (EMD2). Minimum requirements vary from €125,000 for Payment Institutions (PIs) that execute payment transactions (credit transfers and direct debits included) to €350,000 for Electronic Money Institutions (EMIs), reflecting their authority to issue and manage e-money. In addition to the minimum capital requirements, payment institutions need to select one of the three methods of ongoing capital requirement measurement, A, B, or C, while e-money institutions are additionally required to adhere to method D. When it comes to other PSPs applying for a license, such as Money Remittance or Payment Initiation Services, the capital threshold may be lower, ranging from €20,000 to €50,000. The end amount is based on service-specific considerations described in the Directives and further implemented in the national legislation of the member states.
United Kingdom (UK)
The United Kingdom operates under its own financial regulatory framework, following the withdrawal from the EU in 2020. Nevertheless, it takes root in the same PSD2 and EMD2 directives and has virtually the same requirements as the EU countries. The current capital requirements for PSPs align with the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and Electronic Money Regulations (EMRs) 2011, which impose €125,000 minimum capital for PIs providing standard payment processing and €350,000 for EMIs authorised to issue e-money. The same as in the EU, in addition to the minimum capital requirements, payment institutions need to select one of the three methods of ongoing capital requirement measurement, A, B, or C, while e-money institutions are also required to adhere to method D. Recently the FCA has increased the scrutiny for PSP capital by requiring firms to periodically submit Financial Resilience Regulatory Return (FIN073) in order to assess financial resilience information on liquidity, income, and net asset position, thus emphasising the importance of a strong capital base for the sector.
Middle East & Africa (MEA)
In the Middle East and Africa regulatory requirements do vary depending on the jurisdiction. To highlight, some major financial hubs such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and South Africa enforce strict capital obligations on the PSP license applicants. The UAE Central Bank mandates a minimum capital of AED 2 million (~€500,000) for PIs and AED 5 million (~€1.25 million) for EMIs. Contrary to the fixed capital amount approach, common in the above-mentioned regions, the South African Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group (IFWG) requires PSPs to maintain capital reserves proportional to transaction volume (similar to the EU and the UK’s method B), though specific thresholds do depend on the PSP licensing tier.
North America (NA)
Another massive player in the industry, the United States, demands compliance with state-specific Money Transmitter License (MTL) requirements, with capital obligations ranging from $100,000 to $1 million, depending on the state within the country. The PSP licensing governance is rather strict, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also evaluates capital reserves for federally regulated payment providers.
In Canada, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) requires PSPs to meet liquidity and operational risk thresholds, particularly under the Retail Payment Activities Act (RPAA). Both the U.S. and Canada impose stringent capital and compliance requirements on PSPs, ensuring financial stability and risk mitigation.
Latin America (LATAM)
Meanwhile, in South America the regulatory landscape is undergoing significant transformation as key markets establish structured licensing requirements to enhance financial stability and oversight. In Brazil, the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) enforces minimum capital requirements of BRL 2 million (~€360,000) for PIs and BRL 5 million (~€900,000) for EMIs undergoing PSP Licensing process. Mexican authorities (the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV)), require PSPs to maintain capital reserves proportionate to operational risks, aligning with the Fintech Law 2018, similarly to those in South Africa.
Asia-Pacific (APAC)
The Asia-Pacific region is vast, and so are the varying capital requirements for PSP license applicants, where not all countries rely on the fixed minimum capital. For instance, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) mandates PSPs maintain capital buffers aligned with liquidity risk, while in the Hong Kong administrative region, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) enforces more strict liquidity and safeguarding requirements for PSPs. Japanese authorities maintain a more dynamic approach, with the Financial Services Agency (FSA) requiring PSPs to secure capital reserves that scale with transaction volume to ensure financial resilience in high-growth markets.
Customer Funds Safeguarding Obligations
Beyond strict capital reserve requirements for PSP licensing, PayTechs must implement robust customer fund safeguarding mechanisms to protect customer money. Regulatory bodies mandate that PSPs adopt either segregated accounts, where client funds are held in ring-fenced accounts with an authorised credit institution separate from operational assets, or insurance and guarantee mechanisms. In this case, regulators permit PSPs to obtain insurance coverage or equivalent financial guarantees from accredited institutions to secure customer funds in case of insolvency.
Additionally, many regulators enforce annual external safeguarding audits and reporting obligations. Some other regulators, like the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, impose strict adherence to the customer funds reconciliation requirements. These measures collectively ensure greater financial security and compliance within the industry.
Risk Management & Liquidity Monitoring
Among the numerous requirements for PSP licensing, firms must also implement comprehensive liquidity risk management frameworks. This includes conducting stress testing and liquidity projections to ensure they can sustain operations under adverse financial conditions. Additionally, some regulators oblige the PSPs to submit periodic financial statements, which is a common regulatory practice for the European Banking Authority, the UK’s FCA and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the US.
To further strengthen financial stability, PSPs must also establish operational resilience plans that include contingency measures for managing solvency risks, cybersecurity threats, and financial disruptions. Recently, most European regulators have introduced the requirement to prepare, maintain, and regularly update the Recovery and Exit Plan for unforeseen stress scenarios. These PSP licensing requirements collectively enhance risk management and protection of the wider financial services sector.
Crucially for the applicants, they must demonstrate their systems and controls, which will allow them to appropriately track all of the aforementioned metrics, whilst having capabilities to produce them to the regulators at either predetermined intervals or upon request.
AML & KYC Compliance
Why AML & KYC Compliance is Critical for PSP Licensing
In the rapidly evolving PayTech industry, regulatory authorities worldwide impose strict AML and KYC obligations on Payment Service Providers to prevent illicit financial activities. PSPs must implement robust customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) frameworks, transaction monitoring systems and have reporting mechanisms at hand to properly detect, deflect, and report suspicious activity. The ability to provide evidence to the regulator that these tools and systems are deployed and will be effective during PSP licensing is imperative for the applicant firm’s success with the licensing process.
This section focuses on the AML regulations across different regions to provide a better overview of the impact that geographics have on the PSP licensing process.
Key AML & KYC Requirements for PSP Licensing
European Union
There is a strict legal framework for AML compliance across EU member states, established by the Anti-Money Laundering Directives, the most recent one being the Sixth Anti-money Laundering Directive (AMLD6). These regulations require PSPs to conduct enhanced due diligence (EDD) for high-risk customers such as politically exposed persons (PEPs), ensuring thorough risk assessments – a necessity for the PSP licensing process.
Additionally, in some EU member states, PSPs must implement real-time transaction monitoring using AI-driven tools to detect anomalies and report suspicious activities to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the respective member state. Failure to comply with AMLD6 can result in severe penalties, including palpable fines or even criminal liability for executives. These firm measures reinforce the EU’s commitment to combating financial crime and ensuring regulatory compliance, carefully looking out for any anomalies.
United Kingdom
Although the United Kingdom’s regulations still possess similarities to the ones of the European Union, UK AML obligations are enforced through the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR) 2017 (as amended), which incorporate additional post-Brexit regulatory enhancements.
Under these regulations for PSP licensing, the firms must register with the HMRC (for remittance firms) or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for AML supervision and maintain risk-based Know Your Customer (KYC) verification for all customers. Additionally, they are required to conduct ongoing transaction screening to detect unusual patterns and submit Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) to the National Crime Agency. Non-compliance with MLR 2017 can lead to severe consequences, including criminal prosecution, financial penalties, or even license revocation. These regulations ensure a robust framework for preventing financial crime and maintaining the integrity of the UK’s financial system.
Middle East & Africa (MEA)
Due to the vast territorial nature, AML compliance across the MEA region varies, but in this section, we will focus on the key jurisdictions that were discussed already. Large financial hubs such as the UAE and South Africa apply strong regulatory measures to combat financial crime. In the UAE, the Central Bank responsible for PSP licensing mandates that PSPs integrate AI-powered AML screening tools to enhance fraud detection and risk management. Meanwhile, South Africa’s Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) requires real-time transaction reporting for high-risk transactions to ensure greater transparency and accountability. Additionally, many MEA countries actively participate in Financial Action Task Force (FATF) initiatives to align with global AML standards. These efforts reflect a growing commitment to strengthening financial security and regulatory compliance across the region.
North America (NA)
In the United States, Payment Service Providers (PSPs) must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which mandates implementing Customer Identification Programs (CIP), conducting ongoing Anti-Money Laundering (AML) risk assessments, and reporting suspicious activities through Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) and Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR). The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) oversees these regulations, and non-compliance can result in substantial penalties. In Canada, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) requires PSPs to register as money services businesses (MSBs) and maintain comprehensive AML compliance programs to ensure financial integrity.
Globally, jurisdictions enforce transaction monitoring and reporting obligations, with specific requirements varying by country. In the European Union, financial institutions must adhere to AML directives and national regulations, often mandating the reporting of significant transactions to Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs). While reporting thresholds differ across regions, the overarching goal remains the prevention of financial crime and the assurance of regulatory compliance.
Latin America (LATAM)
Whilst the market in the Latin American region is undergoing noticeable growth, its regulators are increasingly strengthening AML enforcement to combat financial crime and enhance regulatory compliance for PSPs and firms undergoing the PSP licensing process. If we take a closer look at previously mentioned countries, Brazil’s Central Bank enforces stringent AML measures for both domestic and cross-border transactions, requiring PSPs to implement comprehensive transaction monitoring systems, ensuring that both local and international financial flows are scrutinized to detect and report suspicious activities.
In Mexico, for instance, the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) enforces the Fintech Law, requiring PSPs to implement automated KYC solutions to enhance identity verification and risk management. While manual verification processes remain applicable, automation is increasingly emphasized to improve efficiency, minimize human error, and align with global AML compliance standards. These efforts contribute to the region’s financial transparency, ensuring that PSPs meet the same AML obligations upheld under FATF guidelines.
Asia-Pacific (APAC)
Due to the vast nature of the region, AML compliance across APAC varies significantly, with Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan leading regulatory initiatives to strengthen financial security. Regulators in these jurisdictions enforce stringent AML frameworks in alignment with global standards, ensuring PSPs implement robust compliance programs, transaction monitoring, and reporting requirements. In Australia, for example, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) mandates that PSPs adhere to strict AML policies, a practice commonly observed in other jurisdictions across the globe.
Operational Resilience & Risk Management
Why Operational Resilience is Essential for PSP Licensing
In the field of high-risk environments, where PSPs operate, financial, technological, and regulatory challenges have a tendency to constantly evolve. Emphasised by regulators worldwide, Operational Resilience is a core requirement for PSP licensing to ensure that firms possess the ability to withstand potential disruptions and risks without breaking the service continuity. Let’s explore the risk management frameworks that are employed for jurisdictional mandate compliance, serving as a financial stability safeguard and consumer protection.
Key Aspects of Operational Resilience & Risk Management
Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery
While undergoing PSP licensing, implementing business continuity planning (BCP) and disaster recovery (DR) mechanisms is vital to PayTech companies. These mechanisms ensure uninterrupted service in the face of potential disruptions, such as cyberattacks, system failures, or financial crises. To support BCP, regular stress testing must be conducted alongside failover mechanism establishment – all to guarantee seamless customer access to payment services. Crucially, all of this must be established prior to getting the authorisation, which is not an easy task to say the least.
Risk Management & Governance Frameworks
A well-defined risk management framework is critical to PSP operations. Firms must establish structured governance policies that outline risk identification, assessment, and mitigation strategies across operational, financial, and regulatory domains. Risk committees and compliance officers play a pivotal role in overseeing adherence to prudential risk controls and ensuring compliance with local and international mandates.
Looking closely at the regional regulations, DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) sets a regulatory framework for ICT risk management, requiring PSPs to assess and document vulnerabilities, implement security policies, and comply with cybersecurity oversight within the European Union. The United Kingdom’s Operational Resilience Framework is similar but different to DORA, emphasising third-party risk management and incident reporting obligations with a lot more freedom in relation to the implementation based upon identification of important business services and impact tolerance setting.
Fraud Prevention & Cybersecurity Measures
With the increasing digitisation of payment services, cyber threats and financial fraud may pose significant risks to PSPs, requiring robust security measures to protect customer data introduced at the stage of PSP licensing. Multi-layered security controls, including real-time fraud detection systems to identify anomalies in payment flows and strong customer authentication (SCA) enhance transaction security that is mandated strictly by regulators.
Additionally, PSPs must implement data encryption and secure API integrations to safeguard sensitive payment data. To further strengthen cybersecurity, regulatory authorities require firms to conduct penetration testing and security audits to assess system vulnerabilities.
Multiple bodies of authority, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) in the North American region mandate stringent cybersecurity frameworks for payment institutions.
Third-Party & Outsourcing Risk Management
Relying on third-party services like infrastructure providers, payment processors, and IT vendors is a common practice for PSPs. Risk management policies apply to these providers as well, enforced by regulatory bodies to ensure outsourcing arrangements comply with jurisdictional financial laws, such as Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) in the EU, which created a harmonized framework for ICT risk management across financial institutions.
Regulatory Reporting & Incident Management
Additionally, PSPs must implement incident management protocols to detect, report, and mitigate operational disruptions for licensing and operational purposes. Many regulators, including the FCA, EBA, and MAS, dictate timely notification of cybersecurity breaches, fraud incidents, and system failures. Firms are required to submit post-incident analysis reports, detailing the root cause for the issue, corrective actions taken, and present long-term risk mitigation strategies.
Operational resilience is no longer just a best practice – it is a regulatory necessity. To ensure smooth PSP licensing, firms must align with jurisdictional compliance frameworks, implement robust risk management controls, and ensure continuous service availability to maintain regulatory approval and market trust.
Consumer Protection & Funds Safeguarding Rules
Why Consumer Protection is a Core Requirement for PSP Licensing
Another significant regulation on the road to obtaining a license for PSP firms is consumer protection and funds safeguarding. PSPs are obliged to maintain trust in a wider financial services sector and prevent customer losses due to mismanagement, fraud, or insolvency. Ensuring transparent pricing, secure customer fund handling, and swift dispute resolution mechanisms is not just a regulatory necessity but a key confidence factor within the PSP licensing process.
Key Aspects of Consumer Protection & Funds Safeguarding
Funds Segregation & Safeguarding Requirements
Since requirements vary by jurisdiction, PSPs must ensure compliance with local financial laws. Regulators mandate that PSPs hold customer funds in ring-fenced accounts with licensed credit institutions or central banks, preventing the misuse of client deposits. For licensing and smooth operations, PSPs must present and maintain liquidity buffers to cover potential claims and safeguard financial stability.
To further enhance consumer protection, regulators often require firms to obtain insurance or comparable guarantees to secure client funds in the event of financial distress. For instance, the European regulators impose strict reconciliation and reporting obligations to ensure that PSPs uphold financial integrity. In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has proposed changes to the safeguarding regime, including the introduction of annual safeguarding audits conducted by external auditors. These proposals are currently under consultation, with the final rules expected to be published in the first half of 2025.
Transparent Pricing & Fair Business Practices
Customer-related communications and information is required to be transparent, thus applicants for PSP licensing must disclose all transaction fees, foreign exchange rates, and service terms clearly to customers. Hidden charges or unfair pricing strategies violate consumer protection laws and may lead to enforcement actions. In North America, the FTC requires PSPs to ensure clear and conspicuous disclosures for all financial transactions. In the UK, the Consumer Duty is a regulatory framework introduced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK to improve consumer protection in financial services hence raising the expectations of the regulator when it comes to fair treatment. It sets higher standards for firms to ensure they deliver good outcomes for retail customers.
Dispute Resolution & Consumer Rights Enforcement
Effective dispute resolution mechanisms are essential for PSPs, ensuring that customers can efficiently address unauthorised transactions, fraud cases, and service-related complaints. Regulators across the world dictate that PSP licensing applicants establish clear customer complaint handling policies that align with financial ombudsman schemes, providing a structured approach to resolving disputes. Moreover, the firms must implement chargeback and refund procedures to manage disputed transactions fairly and transparently. Automated fraud protection solutions are also widely recognised as a powerful tool for unauthorised access and financial loss prevention.
Consumer protection remains a priority for global regulators, reinforcing the need for PSPs to implement strong fund safeguarding policies, fair pricing structures, and robust dispute resolution frameworks to maintain regulatory approval and uphold customer trust.
Regulatory Reporting & Compliance Monitoring
The Role of Regulatory Reporting in PSP Licensing
Another fundamental aspect of PSP licensing is regulatory reporting, aimed to assist financial institutions in maintaining transparency, accountability, and compliance with legal standards. Strict compliance monitoring frameworks are establishing the ground for financial crime detection, prudential supervision overseeing and safeguarding the integrity of the financial system. PSPs must comply with jurisdiction-specific reporting requirements, including transaction records, AML controls, operational risk assessments, and capital adequacy disclosures.
Regulators such as the European Banking Authority, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, and the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency mandate periodic regulatory filings, real-time transaction monitoring, and data-sharing with financial intelligence units (FIUs). Failure to comply can lead to severe financial penalties, license revocation, or even criminal liability for executives.
Key Reporting & Compliance Obligations
Financial & Transaction Reporting
A firm undergoing a PSP license is required to provide an assurance that its core payments system is capable of producing the required data for the reports. These include, but are not limited to reports on transaction volumes, liquidity levels, and overall financial health to supervisory authorities, ensuring regulatory compliance and transparency. These filings often include Payment Transaction Reports (PTRs), mandated by the European Banking Authority (EBA) under PSD2, which provide insights into processed transactions to enhance financial oversight. Additionally, PSPs must submit Capital Adequacy and Liquidity Reports to prudential regulators (FINREP and COREP), demonstrating that they maintain the necessary capital reserves and risk buffers. Furthermore, large-value and cross-border payment reporting is required by central banks and financial oversight bodies to monitor systemic risks within the payment infrastructure.
Cross-Border Compliance & Data-Sharing Regulations
Applicants for PSP licensing must obtain authorization within the jurisdiction in which they plan to operate, as most regulatory frameworks do not grant automatic cross-border approval. The European Union (EU) is an exception, allowing licensed PSPs to operate across member states through the passporting system under PSD2. To ensure compliance in international transactions, regulatory bodies impose cross-border reporting obligations aimed at preventing financial crimes and enhancing transparency. While not universally applicable to all PSPs, requirements such as the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) apply in certain jurisdictions (e.g. Lithuania) and FATCA is applicable in a broader sense to all those financial institutions serving US citizens, ensuring tax compliance and financial integrity in cross-border payments where mandated; hence, raising the bar for reporting and provision of the information.
Ensuring Compliance Through Effective Monitoring
Regulatory compliance is an ongoing obligation that directs PSP licensing applicants to implement real-time monitoring tools alongside automated reporting systems, and dedicate compliance teams. Supervisory authorities increasingly demand data-driven insights, pushing firms to adopt advanced compliance technologies to streamline their reporting frameworks and reduce regulatory risk.
For PSPs seeking to obtain or maintain their license, adhering to regulatory reporting and compliance monitoring is not optional, but rather fundamental for financial stability, fraud prevention, and long-term operational success.
The Role of Core Banking Software in PSP Licensing
Core Banking Software as a Compliance Enabler
Securing a PSP license requires a robust operational and compliance infrastructure, and core banking software plays a pivotal role in meeting these regulatory expectations. PSPs must demonstrate that they have the technological capacity to manage financial transactions securely, adhere to compliance mandates, and ensure financial stability. Regulators assess the ability of an institution’s IT infrastructure to handle risk management, transaction monitoring, reporting automation, and fund safeguarding – all of which are facilitated by an effective core banking system.
A well-integrated core banking platform enables PSPs to streamline compliance with regulatory frameworks such as PSD2, AML directives, and operational resilience mandates. It ensures real-time financial oversight, supports seamless fund reconciliation, and automates transaction tracking to meet anti-fraud and risk management requirements.
Legacy Systems vs. Modern Cloud-Based Platforms
Traditional legacy core banking systems, often used by financial institutions for decades, are increasingly viewed as inefficient for modern regulatory needs. These systems rely on outdated infrastructure, and often monolithic architecture, making them costly to maintain, difficult to scale, and slow to adapt to evolving compliance requirements. PSPs operating on legacy platforms often struggle with manual compliance reporting, fragmented data management, and security vulnerabilities.
In contrast, modern cloud-based core banking platforms provide:
- Scalability & Flexibility: Cloud solutions adapt to regulatory changes, supporting seamless integration with new compliance mandates.
- Automated Compliance & Reporting: Real-time transaction monitoring, AML screening, and regulatory filing automation reduce manual workload and improve accuracy.
- Enhanced Security & Risk Management: Built-in fraud detection, encrypted data storage, and threat analysis.
- Cost Efficiency: Cloud-based systems eliminate the need for expensive infrastructure maintenance, reducing operational overhead.
With regulatory requirements evolving rapidly, adopting a cloud-based core banking infrastructure is becoming a necessity rather than a choice for PSPs. These platforms enable financial institutions to navigate compliance challenges efficiently, ensure licensing approval, and scale operations in a fast-changing regulatory landscape.
Adopting a Cloud-Based Core Banking Solution for PSP Licensing
Choosing a cloud-based core banking software over an on-prem solution provides significant advantages for PSPs navigating the licensing process. Cloud platforms provide scalable infrastructure and pre-configured compliance tools, reducing development time and regulatory complexity, whether custom-built or off-the-shelf.
A cloud-based solution also reduces the complexity of ongoing regulatory updates, security compliance, and system maintenance. By leveraging a SaaS provider service, PSPs ensure their operations remain in line with evolving financial regulations without the burden of extensive IT management.
From a financial perspective, cloud-based systems minimise upfront capital investment, as there is no need for large-scale infrastructure development. PSPs gain access to advanced regulatory compliance tools, automation capabilities, and API integrations, ensuring seamless connectivity with financial networks and reporting bodies. The scalability and adaptability of modern cloud-based platforms allow PSPs to easily integrate with third-party services, ensuring continued compliance as regulatory frameworks evolve.
How can Baseella help with the licensing?
A reliable cloud-based banking software technology is vital for PSP licensing. Baseella is a fully integrated SaaS core banking platform built to meet the demanding compliance and operational requirements of PSPs. Baseella streamlines regulatory reporting, AML compliance, and transaction monitoring, helping PSPs navigate the complexities of licensing with ease.
Baseella goes beyond standard compliance tools by offering a pre-certified regulatory framework that accelerates PSP licensing. Its automated risk and fraud monitoring strengthens security measures, while seamless API integrations provide the flexibility needed to scale operations efficiently. Real-time financial reporting and reconciliation ensure full transparency, allowing PSPs to meet regulatory expectations with confidence. With its comprehensive approach to compliance, security, and operational efficiency, Baseella positions itself as the optimal core banking solution for PSPs aiming for sustainable growth in a highly regulated market.