No real cost savings from new AML guidelines, says PwC survey
But there is senior management buy-in on AML
A new survey from PricewaterhouseCoopers has discovered that although UK financial services institutions have implemented new anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines, few can quantify the anticipated cost savings.
The survey, based on 148 interviews with money laundering reporting officers (MLROs) and other compliance professionals with AML responsibilities from the UK financial services sector, reveals that 91% of respondents are satisfied that their organisations have implemented the new risk-based approach to AML set out by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The risk-based approach involves identifying, assessing, mitigating, monitoring and documenting risks of money laundering.
But some 82% of respondents indicated that they had not noticed any cost benefits from implementing the new approach. Of those respondents who had not identified any cost benefits to date, 64% said they never expect to see any benefits. Further, a large percentage (86%) of those surveyed were unable to quantify total spend on AML compliance in the previous year.
On a more positive note, the survey acknowledges the engagement of senior management with the new AML system, and some 84% respondents said they had a strategic response to money laundering threats in place but challenges still remain. Training staff (54%) was cited as the foremost challenge along with technology implementation (54%), the need to work to global standards (45%) and the effectiveness of monitoring systems (43%). Enhancing policies and procedures, specifically in terms of more automation and transaction monitoring, and better systems/computer software was also highlighted.
“It is reassuring to see that the UK financial services industry is taking the right steps to combat money laundering,” said Andrew Clark, partner, anti-money laundering services, PricewaterhouseCoopers. “But it is clear that progress still needs to be made, at a time when there has never been greater pressure on financial institutions to ensure their anti-money laundering controls are fit for purpose. Financial institutions are making major investments in AML controls and it is important for them to know whether the money is being well spent. We would urge greater attention to the costs involved to help meet the challenges of tackling economic crime.”
He adds: “Financial services institutions need to ensure that their MLROs are adequately supported and advised. It is also crucial to address the efficiency of their AML systems, many of which are proving ineffective at identifying suspicious transactions.”
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Regulators better prepared for next Credit Suisse, says SRB head
FSB strengthening guidance on international co-operation, but EU needs more mutual support
From Pillar to Pillar… to post: where now for op risk in Europe?
Experts think enhanced Pillar 2 charge informed by Dora would be more useful than a blunt Pillar 1
PRA struggles to follow Fed’s FRTB modelling moves
Market risk experts say minor differences in US rules add up to more incentives for IMA adoption
Lifeline keeps Europe’s hopes afloat for single-sided reporting
Despite Esma’s proposal for delegated reporting of trades, the industry may yet get its wish
EU’s plan to get competitive faces big legislative hurdles
Large and controversial legislative package may be too amorphous to deliver results quickly
FDIC relearns SVB lessons in resolution tinkering
Paring back requirements gets thumbs up from some, but concerns linger
Stablecoin consortia may be ‘interim’ step to solo bank issuance
Former Citi payments head and Ubyx founder says all G-Sibs will issue their own coins
Report once: will Esma’s €1bn reforms deliver the full picture?
Critics say plan to merge three reporting regimes will see scant returns, and won’t mesh with single-sided reporting