False positives in AML compliance typically occur when a transaction or customer record wrongly flags a potential match with a sanctioned entity or individual on watchlists, including PEPs.
According to Alessa, these incorrect flags differ from true positives, where the match is accurate and must be blocked from transacting, and true negatives, where non-sanctioned entities are rightly cleared. False negatives, which clear sanctioned entities, pose the most severe screening risk. Businesses aim to find a balance in identifying true positives while minimizing disruptive false positives and false negatives.
Several factors contribute to the high incidence of false positives in sanctions screening. Many sanctions lists only provide minimal identifying information like names, which can be common across thousands of legitimate customers, leading to false matches. Additionally, matches are more likely when customer data lacks comprehensive information, such as birth dates or national ID numbers, or when the data is outdated or inaccurate.
Moreover, most basic sanctions screenings fail to consider essential contextual information like secondary identifiers, which could distinguish between legitimate customers and sanctioned entities. This lack of detailed scrutiny, coupled with rigid or poorly calibrated matching algorithms, further increases the likelihood of false positives.
Despite the challenges, false positives in sanctions screening can never be fully eliminated due to the limitations of the data and deliberate evasion techniques used by sanctioned entities. However, they can be significantly reduced. Enhancing data quality through accurate, complete, and timely information is critical. Updated sanctions lists and well-maintained customer data can reduce the occurrence of false positives. Adding contextual data into the screening process also helps, as it builds a more comprehensive risk profile, allowing for more sophisticated matching techniques.
Advanced screening tools can also aid in minimizing false positives. Risk scoring and PEP scoring models enable more nuanced evaluations of potential matches, focusing efforts on the highest risks. Likewise, employing sophisticated matching algorithms and integrating AI and machine learning can improve the accuracy of identifying true and false matches.
Nevertheless, the foundation of effective AML compliance remains in establishing a robust rules-based analytics system. This system allows for the continuous evaluation and customization of rules to reduce unnecessary alerts, which can decrease false positive rates. Only once these basics are mastered should additional tools like AI be considered to enhance efficiency and potentially reduce costs.
Advanced analytics and AI can be beneficial for large organizations dealing with vast numbers of transactions and clients, but their worth must be evaluated against the rate of false positives in the existing rules-based AML compliance program. While AI and advanced analytics can offer significant benefits, they must be accurate and intelligent enough to avoid causing false negatives, which could lead to severe penalties.
In conclusion, while the ideal false positive rate depends on the specific industry and compliance requirements, even a slight reduction can significantly impact an organization’s efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Establishing an effective rules-based program is essential before considering more advanced solutions like AI.
Read the full post here.
Copyright © 2024 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst
