Author: Ana Clement / Chair of the Trade and Investment Committee – Senior Manager | Tax & Legal at Deloitte
The competitiveness of a jurisdiction no longer depends solely on its infrastructure, connectivity or macroeconomic stability. Increasingly, trade and investment decisions factor in the quality of the regulatory environment: the clarity of the rules, the predictability of their application and the ability to demonstrate compliance in a verifiable manner. In this context, compliance has ceased to be an operational matter and has become an indicator of institutional maturity and an essential component of the country risk profile.
In recent years, Panama has moved consistently in that direction. A turning point was its removal from the FATF grey list in 2023, following the corresponding verification process. Although this milestone does not resolve all of the country’s reputational challenges, it did remove an objective factor that weighed on risk assessments, correspondent banking processes and counterparty analysis; in practical terms, it improved a relevant variable when deciding whether to operate or invest in a jurisdiction.
This progress was consolidated with the regulatory update issued by the Superintendency of Banks through Agreement No. 1‑2026 —in force as of July 16, 2026— which introduces technical adjustments to the preventive regime applicable to banks and trust companies, develops the risk-based approach and strengthens due diligence —including its simplified form where appropriate given the risk profile—. It also incorporates specific requirements for digital onboarding, setting higher demands on traceability and the effectiveness of controls. This adjustment not only brings order to supervisory expectations, but also reduces grey areas that were generating operational and interpretation costs.
In the corporate sphere, a process of clean-up and registry updating is advancing for legal entities whose status is suspended for non-payment of the annual franchise tax (tasa única), with registry and tax effects aimed at cleaning up the corporate universe. The first stage began with more than 180,000 companies included in the dissolution process, advancing in phases. Beyond the formal act, these actions strengthen the integrity of the information, facilitate traceability and send a clear message: prolonged non-compliance has consequences.
Personal data protection is another pillar of this regulatory infrastructure. Panama has Law 81 of 2019, which establishes the principles of loyalty, purpose, proportionality, truthfulness and accuracy, security and transparency; defines obligations for data controllers and processors; and provides a clear framework for policies and controls in data-intensive operations. For service centers, digital platforms and regional operations, this local standard brings legal certainty and operational consistency.
In a complementary manner, the country has strengthened its ecosystem for contemporary forms of work organization. Panama has a recognized framework for telework that establishes clear rules for its implementation, formalization and oversight. Added to this are immigration options that facilitate the attraction of international talent, including alternatives for remote workers and special regimes with one-stop processing windows, which speed up the mobility of specialized personnel. These elements contribute to a more functional environment for hybrid structures, regional operations and cross-border teams that need to combine mobility, corporate support and formal compliance.
A relevant aspect of commercial transparency has also been incorporated. Law 473 of 2025 —which takes effect on June 19, 2026— requires displaying the total price of goods and services, including applicable taxes, fees and charges. Although its immediate purpose is consumer protection, its operational impact is broader: it standardizes information criteria, reduces complaints and increases certainty for suppliers and users, without changing the way the tax invoice is issued.
Taken together, these developments do not eliminate all the areas that still require attention, where inter-institutional coordination and the uniform application of the rules must continue to be reinforced. The direction, however, is clear: a country that is more demanding on traceability, more explicit in its rules and more willing to associate compliance —or its absence— with tangible consequences. And that, in trade and investment, makes the difference.
The conclusion is straightforward: in the competition among jurisdictions, compliance should no longer be understood as an incidental cost. Properly structured, supervised and executed, it can also become a competitive advantage for the country.
