Independent reviews are a cornerstone of a strong, risk-based BSA/AML and OFAC compliance programme.
According to Arctic Intelligence, they provide an impartial evaluation, highlighting areas for improvement and ensuring that a financial institution’s programme effectively mitigates risks. Yet, there’s a danger these reviews might degrade into superficial checklist exercises rather than substantive evaluations, creating a perilous illusion by overlooking critical weaknesses.
Tailoring independent reviews to the unique risk profile of each institution is critical. Generic reviews can miss significant red flags by not considering the institution’s size, complexity, operational context, reliance on third parties, and group structure. For instance, a review at a money transmitter company within a larger group might overlook inter-company liabilities not recorded in affiliated companies’ balance sheets, potentially indicating accounting control failures or intentional misconduct.
Over-reliance on checklists can turn independent reviews into mere box-ticking exercises. This approach often fails to assess the actual effectiveness of policies, procedures, and controls. For example, a reviewer might confirm the existence of a transaction monitoring system without evaluating if its rules are risk-based, or whether the system effectively identifies and resolves alerts, thereby missing potential weaknesses.
Deep, critical testing is crucial in independent reviews. Superficial assessments that only verify the operational status of systems without scrutinising their configurations or effectiveness can leave institutions vulnerable to undetected illicit activities. Poorly configured systems by compliance and IT teams could fail to detect crucial red flags, exposing the institution to significant risks.
The effectiveness of independent reviews heavily depends on the expertise and objectivity of the reviewers. Those lacking deep BSA/AML and OFAC expertise or harboring conflicts of interest might not rigorously test controls or challenge institutional assumptions, potentially leaving significant compliance gaps undetected.
The true test of an independent review’s value lies in its aftermath. Reviews that identify issues without providing actionable recommendations or failing to assess the institution’s compliance culture and governance practices merely highlight problems without fostering real change, potentially leading to ineffective oversight and increased vulnerability.
Viewing independent reviews merely as a regulatory formality undermines their potential. Proactively managing risks and tailoring the compliance programme to the institution’s specific risk profile is essential, especially for companies dealing with high-risk jurisdictions or new threats like cryptocurrency.
Compliance is an ongoing, dynamic process. Reviews must adapt to the changing landscape of financial crime, incorporating new typologies, industry practices, and regulatory expectations to remain effective.
By avoiding the “form over substance” trap, institutions can use independent reviews to strengthen their risk management strategies and cultivate a true culture of compliance. These reviews are not just a one-time fix but a vital part of a continuous effort to identify and address evolving threats in the dynamic landscape of financial crime.
Copyright © 2024 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst
