a) They exploit the same vulnerabilities in financial systems (inadequate level of anonymity and opacity in carrying out transactions).
b) They hide the sources and destination of the funds.
c) They seek the mobility of funds.
d) Methodologies. Within the framework of the formal or informal financial system. The informal transfer of funds is worth highlighting (“hawala” in the Muslim world, “fei ch’ien”, “chit”, “chop” in China, “padala” in the Philippines, “poey kuan” in Thailand, etc.).


a) Cycle (linear in FT versus circular in ML)
b) Smaller amounts in FT (organizational or operational?).
c) Timing: Greater speed in FT (operational) v / s greater efficiency in ML.
d) Proportion of legitimate sources (higher in FT).
e) Motivation (financing terrorist acts in FT vs. profit in ML).
f) Approach: use of funds in FT versus the source of them in ML.
g) Objectives: those of the terrorist organization in TF (destabilization, religious, political, ideological, ethnic, etc.) v / s to secretly integrate illegal funds into the financial system in ML.

Obviously, the lines between money laundering and terrorist financing are blurred. In terrorist financing we have, on the one hand, the “operational” financing of an attack and the long-term financing of the organization. In the latter case, the boundaries between terrorist financing and money laundering are not so clear. In this sense, both crimes can be carried out by the same organization (example: FARC), although they tend to be separate phenomena.