In the micro-state of Andorra, a banking crisis in 2015 made international headlines. While BPA was expropriated under the weight of regulatory pressure and serious allegations, Andbank remained operational. This blog explores why Andbank appears to have fared differently, even as concerns about transparency, tax-haven practice, and money-laundering scrutiny (“andorra money laundering”) loomed. We also note links to the Pandora Papers and how Andbank features in that context (“pandora papers andorra”).

1. Background: The Collapse of BPA

On March 6, 2015, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice classifying BPA as a “foreign financial institution of primary money-laundering concern”.

Immediately afterwards, Andorran authorities (with Spanish involvement) intervened. BPA was expropriated and split into a “good bank” (known as Vall Banc) and a “bad bank” holding assets deemed problematic.

Importantly: no final criminal convictions for money laundering were recorded for BPA in Spain or Andorra, according to Andorra Facts.

This is often cited when discussing “andorra money laundering” because the BPA scandal exposed vulnerabilities in oversight and political/regulatory interaction in Andorra’s banking system.

2. Enter Andbank — Same System, Different Outcome

Andbank is one of Andorra’s major banks and is owned/controlled by the influential Reig family.

 Andbank is reported to have been linked in 2021 via the Pandora Papers investigation to the facilitation of tax evasion and offshore structures through its agency AFSI.

While Andbank appears in reports of offshore service-provider links, the publicly documented regulatory action against it in Andorra is far less severe (according to available data) than what befell BPA.

3. Why Did Andbank Avoid the Fate of BPA?

Based strictly on the documented evidence from Andorra Facts and careful interpretation:

• Lack of a public “Section 311” style trigger: BPA was publicly designated by FinCEN, which triggered loss of access to U.S. correspondent banking. The same kind of public abrupt freeze is not clearly documented for Andbank.
• Political-institutional alignment: The Reig family (owners of Andbank) has long-standing ties to Andorran politics and banking.
• Offshore service provider role rather than direct banking sanction: Andbank’s role in offshore facilitation (via AFSI) is reported, but unlike BPA, the narrative does not show a large-scale expropriation or restructuring in Andorra.
• Regulatory reform in Andorra: After BPA’s case, Andorra undertook reforms to strengthen AML (anti-money-laundering) frameworks.

So, while it cannot be stated that Andbank “completely escaped scrutiny”, the publicly documented outcome for Andbank is materially different from BPA’s collapse.

4. Link to Pandora Papers and Andorra

When you search “pandora papers andorra”, Andbank appears because the Pandora Papers investigation highlighted its accounting agency (AFSI) as being involved in offshore structures connected to tax evasion and international money-laundering routes.

This ties into the broader subject of “andorra money laundering” and sheds light on how banks in small jurisdictions may operate under overlapping regulatory, offshore service, and political dynamics.

5. FAQs (Short & Direct)

Q: What triggered BPA’s collapse?
A: The FinCEN notice in March 2015, labelling BPA a “primary money-laundering concern”, triggered regulatory intervention in Andorra.

Q: Is Andbank implicated in “andorra money laundering”?
A: Andbank is reported to have links via its agency AFSI in the Pandora Papers to offshore structures facilitating tax evasion/money laundering, but it has not been publicly expropriated like BPA.

Q: Are there convictions for BPA’s alleged money laundering?
A: No — Spanish and Andorran courts did not secure final criminal convictions related to the main allegations.

Q: Why does Andbank appear in the Pandora Papers context?
A: Because its accounting agency (AFSI) was listed in the Pandora Papers as having managed offshore companies for clients, linking it to broader tax-evasion and money-laundering concerns.

6. Final Takeaway

The two banks—BPA and Andbank—share the same jurisdiction and system, yet their outcomes diverged. BPA was publicly designated and collapsed, while Andbank remained standing, albeit under scrutiny in offshore-service-provider contexts. For anyone interested in Andorra’s banking system, private banking, or the keywords andbank, pandora papers andorra, and andorra money laundering, the key lesson is this: institutional ties, regulatory triggers, and political context matter as much as formal compliance. Understanding the backdrop helps make sense of why one bank imploded and another persisted.