We’re losing the war on AML, and big consultancies aren’t helping
By 
Martin Woods2020-08-25T15:57:00
Financial crimes expert Martin Woods writes that, in his experience, the big consultancy firms have made a substantial negative contribution to global AML endeavors.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT
You are not logged in and do not have access to members-only content.
If you are already a registered user or a member, SIGN IN now.
Related articles
-
ArticleBanks filing more SARs amid pandemic; is this the right approach?
An increase in the submission of suspicious activity reports for cash values that fall under the mandatory $10,000 transaction reporting threshold last year is a proactive step by banks, but more can always be done, writes Martin Woods.
-
ArticleFinCEN seeking comment on AML program overhaul
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has proposed a plan to issue AML guidance every two years to encourage financial institutions to align their Bank Secrecy Act compliance programs with the agency’s enforcement priorities.
-
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
-
OpinionCreating effective compliance messages for specific employee groups
As 2026 arrives, have you considered the efficacy of your compliance messaging efforts? We have all seen these compliance taglines “Speak Up!,” “See Something, Say Something,” “Ethics Matter!”
-
OpinionTeaching the business to speak risk
Compliance professionals understand the value of risk assessments. We conduct them annually, map risks to controls, and present heat maps to the board. But there is a strategic opportunity that many compliance programs overlook: Teaching the business itself to think in the language of risk.
-
OpinionSOX was built for humans. AI doesn’t fit that model.
For more than two decades, assurance and compliance frameworks have rested on a simple assumption: Material decisions are made by people. Post‑Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) assurance reset worked because it aligned accountability with human behavior. That assumption shapes how internal controls are designed, how accountability is assigned, and how assurance is ...