Analysis: Path to effective AML is doing less with more
By 
Martin Woods2020-06-16T16:28:00
The answer to being more effective at stopping money launderers is to challenge the value of processes that are clearly failing. Financial crime expert Martin Woods explains.
Related articles
-
ArticleWe’ve been failing at AML efforts, but new U.S. rules offer hope
If we fail to improve our collective AML efforts, specialized law firms will offer an inviting incentive to those who blow the whistle on our continued failings, writes Martin Woods.
-
ArticleMore data, more problems with FinCEN international transfer proposal?
A recent international wire transfer rule change proposed by U.S. regulators could go a long way toward combatting terrorist financing, but the increased transaction reporting may overwhelm an already taxed system, writes Martin Woods.
-
ArticleForget the status quo: Proactive AML is the path forward
The AML community is guilty of tolerating the failing status quo, and very few have dared to confront, challenge, and disrupt the inefficient and ineffective practices. A proactive approach could be the solution, writes Martin Woods.
More from Opinion
-
OpinionAI adoption without trust: A call for compliance professionals
Employees are adopting AI faster than companies can build policies, governance, and training. That gap creates compliance exposure in areas from data privacy to shadow IT to workplace equity.
-
NewsThe Banks behind Jeffrey Epstein: Why the story matters now more than ever
The Epstein case remains a defining moment for financial institutions. As new investigations bring renewed attention to his enablers, Compliance Week’s 2024 case study offers not only a timeline of failures but a path forward. Here’s what banks, regulators, and compliance teams must learn from it.
-
OpinionA friend for the compliance officer: Co-thinking with AI
At their core, compliance officers are problem-solvers. They wrestle with thorny questions every day: How do we implement a global gifts-and-entertainment policy across jurisdictions with vastly different cultural norms? How do we balance business pressures with anti-corruption obligations? How do we address new risks like AI itself?