Strategies to overcome false positives in AML screening processes


In the nuanced domain of AML compliance, distinguishing between legitimate and suspicious transactions poses a considerable challenge.

According to Alessa, this distinction is critical, especially when navigating the complexities of sanctions, watchlists, and politically exposed persons (PEPs) lists. A common stumbling block for many businesses is the issue of false positives – instances where a legitimate transaction or customer record is incorrectly flagged as suspicious.

These false alarms are distinct from the true positives, which are accurate alerts on sanctioned entities, and true negatives, where non-sanctioned entities are correctly cleared.

The reasons behind the generation of false positives are multifaceted. Often, sanctions lists offer minimal identifying information beyond names, leading to a high number of false matches based on name similarity alone.

This issue is exacerbated by common names or those from regions with naming conventions unfamiliar to Western screeners. Moreover, incomplete or outdated customer data further complicates the identification process. Additionally, screening systems sometimes rely on overly rigid matching algorithms or are inadequately tuned to an institution’s specific customer base and risk profile, contributing to the noise.

Despite the inherent challenges, it’s crucial to acknowledge that completely eliminating false positives in sanctions screening is an unattainable goal due to the limitations of sanctions lists and the deceptive practices of sanctioned entities. However, businesses can significantly reduce their occurrence and impact through various strategies.

Enhancing data quality is a fundamental step towards reducing false positives. This involves ensuring the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of data in both customer databases and sanctions lists. Another effective approach is incorporating contextual data analysis into the screening process, which provides a more holistic view of the customer’s profile, enabling more sophisticated matching techniques.

Managing sanctions, watchlists, and PEPs lists efficiently is also vital. Many organizations are overwhelmed by the volume of matches, leading to the risky practice of disabling screening against certain lists deemed “low risk.” To counter this, implementing risk scoring and PEP scoring models can prioritize alerts, allowing compliance teams to focus on the most significant threats.

Advanced matching algorithms and rules-based analytics are essential tools in the arsenal against false positives. These technologies improve the accuracy of matches and ensure compliance programs focus on real risks rather than managing an overload of false alerts. Additionally, the integration of AI and machine learning can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of AML compliance programs by reducing the manual effort required in screening and review processes.

Ultimately, while the quest to eradicate false positives entirely may be futile, the deployment of data, technology, and strategic approaches can markedly streamline AML compliance efforts, reducing both operational costs and the risk of regulatory penalties.

Read the full post here.

Copyright © 2024 RegTech Analyst

Enjoyed the story? 

Subscribe to our weekly RegTech newsletter and get the latest industry news & research

Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst


The following investor(s) were tagged in this article.