What would happen if SWIFT went dark? The risk may seem remote, but recent geopolitical shifts show how quickly access to critical payment rails can change. Here’s why banks need flexible payment systems and alternative rails to protect their cross-border payments.
SWIFT (Swift) is a global cross-border payment network with over 11,500 participants across 200 countries. Banks around the world, including those in South Africa, rely on it to move money across markets.
While SWIFT is a trusted payments network, depending on it alone creates concentration risk. In South Africa’s case, the U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 raised concern that one day the country could be cut off from the network.
Although SWIFT is not governed by U.S. regulation, about 50% of global transactions are in U.S. dollars. A U.S. sanction would prevent correspondent banks such as J.P. Morgan and Citibank from processing dollar transactions to or from South Africa over the network, significantly impacting cross-border trade.
Even if the likelihood is low, the risk of losing access to SWIFT is real. To mitigate its impact, banks should adopt a multi-rail payment strategy that provides flexibility and control to move payments across alternative networks.
The impact on payments
Every network carries the risk of downtime, and SWIFT is no exception. If it were to fail or be restricted, the knock-on effects would reach daily operations, compliance, and revenue.
Daily operations
Cross-border settlements would be delayed for both interbank and corporate payments. Without alternative rails, banks would be forced to scale back transaction volumes, relying more heavily on manual processes to prioritise urgent payments. Visibility over liquidity and market positions would also diminish as confirmations and nostro account reports lag.
Compliance
If South Africa were sanctioned, counterparties would apply enhanced monitoring of its payments, undermining recent progress following its removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list.
Furthermore, FATF compliance requires complete and accurate payment details. Manual workarounds increase the risk of incomplete information, reducing transparency and heightening the likelihood of non-compliance.
Revenue
B2B payments made up 97% of global cross-border flows, clearing USD 173.2 trillion in 2024. If SWIFT is restricted and a bank can’t move funds through alternative rails, cash management, and FX revenues will decline, and corporates will turn to newer rails or players to keep their payments going.
The ripple effect will extend into other revenue-generating areas, including Trade Finance and Securities. Here, alternative payment rails may cushion the blow by keeping the funds moving, although there’s still more to be done to reach the scale SWIFT has to provide structured confirmations to confidently settle contracts.
Designing for flexibility
Banks need agile systems to reduce the underlying risk as much as possible. The ability to switch to alternative rails with control and agility can be achieved by building internal systems for each rail or better, by using software infrastructure that gives the bank choice when needed.
Integrating with next-generation software provides banks with a built-in contingency plan that minimises disruption. Even if the risk never materialises, they haven’t wasted resources on maintaining unused connections, yet they retain the agility to activate or add new rails quickly, without major reconfiguration.
What to consider when choosing rails
SWIFT provides global reach, data-rich messages, and high security. When evaluating alternative rails, banks should assess:
Geography
Map out which countries you transact with the most. By ranking inbound and outbound SWIFT payment messages, you can identify key corridors and determine which alternative rails are available in those markets.
Network coverage
Evaluate each network’s footprint including how many active participants there are and which countries it covers. For example, the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS) supports multiple African countries including major economies like Nigeria and Kenya.
In this area, fintech aggregator networks, tokenised card schemes, and blockchain based payment rails leap ahead of traditional payment rails by providing global reach without multiple integrations.
Compliance and data standards
Rails that adopt ISO 20022 standards ensure interoperability with key payment rails while carrying payment details that support FATF compliance. China’s CIPS, and the Arab Monetary Fund’s BUNA are examples of payment systems that are ISO 20022-based but operate independently of SWIFT.
Additionally, non-traditional payment rails can align with compliance requirements. For instance, RippleNet “is one of the few blockchain-based networks designed to align with ISO 20022”, making it easier to integrate with traditional payments systems.
Transparency and traceability
Assess how easily you can track payments. Rails that offer real-time visibility improve reconciliation, reduce operational risk, and build trust with clients.
Integration and agility
Systems with clear, modern APIs enable faster onboarding and greater agility to give banks the control to switch or re-route payment flows quickly. Evaluate how each rail integrates into your existing infrastructure or which software solution provides the most flexibility.
Alternatives to SWIFT exist today
Low probability does not mean low impact
SWIFT will remain a vital global network for banks to have access to. However, relying on it exclusively exposes banks to operational and geopolitical risk.
Banks that adopt a multi-rail strategy protect business continuity, reduce concentration risk, and prepare themselves for the rising demand for control and choice.
Contact us to meet with the team to discuss your cross-border payments roadmap.
