What is correspondent banking AML risk?
.svg)
In order to understand what correspondent banking AML risk is, let’s break it down.
What are correspondent banks?
The definition of correspondent banking is: Banks in a country that are set up to provide services for another bank or financial institution in a foreign country. The services provided by a correspondent bank include money transfers, currency exchange, trade documentation and business transactions. Typically, in a correspondent banking relation, two banks in two different countries enter into an agreement to open a correspondent account (Nostro or Vostro account), which enables a domestic bank to make payments or do money transfers in local currency on behalf of a foreign bank. An example of a correspondent banking transaction is given below.
- A corporate customer of a bank in one country wants to pay for products purchased from a foreign supplier.
- The customer approaches its domestic bank and instructs to make the payment (in foreign currency).
- The domestic bank determines the local currency value of the foreign products purchased and deducts the same from its customer’s account.
- The domestic bank then instructs its correspondent bank in the supplier’s country to pay the supplier in the local currency from the domestic bank’s correspondent account.
Correspondent banks are most likely to be used by domestic banks to service transactions that either originate or are completed in foreign countries. Domestic banks generally use correspondent banks to gain access to foreign financial markets and to serve international clients without having to open branches abroad.
What is an example of this?
For example, let’s say you live in the U.S. and go to your local bank to wire funds to a friend in Spain. An employee at the bank simply searches the SWIFT network to find a correspondent bank that has an agreement in place with the financial institution in Spain. Then, the correspondent bank facilitates the transaction.
Money laundering through correspondent banking
Money laundering, the act of concealing the illegal nature of ill-gotten money, is an international problem. According to the UNODC, the amount of money being laundered across the globe every year is equivalent to 2-5% of global GDP, or USD800 billion – USD2 trillion. Financial crime impacts the economies and communities of all countries, irrespective of their financial health and stage of development.
Money laundering has a global nature as many criminals make use of international transaction options in the layering or integration stages. Correspondent banks play an important role in facilitating cross-border money laundering transactions. Criminals make use of the services of correspondent banks without proper anti-money laundering (AML) controls to pass on their criminal proceeds to jurisdictions where they can use them in a hassle-free manner. Here, we are trying to understand correspondent banking AML risk in detail and national and international regulations to mitigate correspondent banking AML risk.
Correspondent banking AML risk
Correspondent banking is an essential part of the global payment system and international trade depends largely on it. However, these facilities are often abused to facilitate money laundering and terrorist financing. Mitigation of correspondent banking AML is often a difficult task as the domestic bank carrying out the transaction on behalf of a foreign bank has to rely on the foreign bank’s abilities in identifying the customer, determining the real owners, and monitoring correspondent banking transactions for risks. Often, a foreign bank’s AML compliance programs may not be sufficient to meet the AML requirements of a domestic bank.
There have been reports that foreign correspondent accounts have been used by drug traffickers and other bad actors to launder money. Further, shell companies have often been used in the layering process to hide the actual ownership of accounts at foreign correspondent financial institutions. Due to a large amount of funds, many transactions, many AML fraud schemes, and a domestic bank’s unfamiliarity with the foreign correspondent bank’s customers, it is easy for criminals to conceal the source and use of ill-gotten funds. Therefore, governments in a correspondent banking relationship must ensure complementary and robust anti-money laundering / counter-terrorist financing (AML/CTF) measures to safeguard their financial systems.
The KYC challenges for correspondent banks
Know-your-customer (KYC) due diligence is an essential element of banking, including correspondent banking. Banks that enter into correspondent banking relationships need to be sure that banks in the chain have correct controls and governance in place, and that their KYC, AML and other due diligence procedures are strong.
Customer due diligence requires that correspondent banks identify and understand their respondents’ banking activities and know if the respondents maintain additional correspondent banking relationships.
FATF guidelines on correspondent banking AML risk
FATF, the international AML/CFT watchdog, recommended various measures to counter money laundering via correspondent banking. FATF noted that “financial institutions have increasingly decided to avoid, rather than to manage, possible money laundering or terrorist financing risks, by terminating business relationships with entire regions or classes of customers”. This so-called ‘de-risking’ practice “can result in financial exclusion, less transparency and greater exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks”, according to the watchdog.
FATF advocates the application of the risk-based approach to correspondent banking relationships. It recommended the following measures to counter money laundering via correspondent banking.
- Due diligence on the respondent institution: FATF recommends additional due diligence measures to be applied to cross-border correspondent banking relationships. Such additional measures are appropriate because cross-border correspondent banking relationships are seen to be inherently higher risk than domestic correspondent customer relationships.
- Developing an understanding of the respondent institution’s business: The correspondent institution should also gather sufficient information to understand the nature of the respondent institution’s business in line with the risks identified.
- Verifying respondent institution’s information and assessing/documenting higher risks: When establishing new correspondent banking relationships, the correspondent institution may obtain information directly from the respondent institution. However, this information needs to be verified with independent sources of information such as corporate registries, registries maintained by competent authorities on the creation or licensing of respondent institutions, and registries of beneficial ownership.
- Ongoing due diligence on the respondent institution: Correspondent institutions are required to conduct ongoing due diligence of the correspondent banking relationship, including periodical reviews of the CDD information on the respondent institution.
- Ongoing transaction monitoring: Ongoing AML monitoring of the correspondent banking account activity is needed for compliance with targeted financial sanctions and to detect any changes in the respondent institution’s transaction pattern that may indicate unusual activity, or any potential deviations from the correspondent relationship.
- Request for information about transactions: Where the monitoring system of the correspondent institution flags a transaction, which could signal unusual activity, the correspondent institution should have internal processes to further review the activity, which may involve requesting transaction information of the respondent institution in order to clarify the situation and possibly clear the alert.
- Clear terms governing the correspondent banking relationship: Correspondent institutions can manage their risks more effectively from the outset by entering into a written agreement with the respondent institution before correspondent services are provided.
- Ongoing communication and dialogue: It is important for correspondent institutions to maintain an ongoing and open dialogue with the respondent institution(s) including helping them understand the correspondent’s AML/CFT policy and expectations, and when needed, engaging with them to improve their AML/CFT controls and processes.
- Adjusting the mitigation measures to the evolution of risks: The level and nature of AML/CFT risk may fluctuate over the course of any relationship and adjustments should be made in the correspondent institution’s risk management strategy to reflect these changes.
While correspondent banking is important for the smooth functioning of international trade and transactions, both respondent banks and correspondent banks should have strong AML/CFT compliance programs to mitigate risks. The use of efficient and effective anti-money laundering software is crucial for the success of any AML/CFT compliance program.
The Tookitaki Anti-Money Laundering Suite, an end-to-end, AI-powered AML/CFT solution, is helping financial institutions comply with many regional and international AML compliance regulations and build scalable and sustainable compliance programs that effectively counter AML risk, including correspondent banking AML risk.
To know more about our AML compliance solution and book a demo, please contact us.
Experience the most intelligent AML and fraud prevention platform
Experience the most intelligent AML and fraud prevention platform
Experience the most intelligent AML and fraud prevention platform
Top AML Scenarios in ASEAN
The Role of AML Software in Compliance
The Role of AML Software in Compliance
We’ve received your details and our team will be in touch shortly.
Ready to Streamline Your Anti-Financial Crime Compliance?
Our Thought Leadership Guides
Anti Fraud Tools: What They Actually Do Inside a Bank
Anti fraud tools are not shiny dashboards or alert engines. They are decision systems working under constant pressure, every second of every day.
Introduction
Anti fraud tools are often described as if they were shields. Buy the right technology, deploy the right rules, and fraud risk is contained. In practice, fraud prevention inside a bank looks very different.
Fraud does not arrive politely. It moves quickly, exploits customer behaviour, adapts to controls, and takes advantage of moments when systems or people hesitate. Anti fraud tools sit at the centre of this environment, making split-second decisions that affect customers, revenue, and trust.
This blog looks past vendor brochures and feature lists to examine what anti fraud tools actually do inside a bank. Not how they are marketed, but how they operate day to day, where they succeed, where they struggle, and what strong fraud capability really looks like in practice.
Anti Fraud Tools Are Decision Engines, Not Detection Toys
At their core, anti fraud tools exist to answer one question.
Is this activity safe to allow right now?
Every fraud decision carries consequences. Block too aggressively and genuine customers are frustrated. Allow too freely and fraud losses escalate. Anti fraud tools constantly balance this tension.
Unlike many compliance controls, fraud systems often operate in real time. They must make decisions before money moves, accounts are accessed, or payments are authorised. There is no luxury of post-event investigation.
This makes anti fraud tools fundamentally different from many other risk systems.
Where Anti Fraud Tools Sit in the Bank
Inside a bank, anti fraud tools are deeply embedded across customer journeys.
They operate across:
- Card payments
- Online and mobile banking
- Account logins
- Password resets
- Payee changes
- Domestic transfers
- Real time payments
- Merchant transactions
Most customers interact with anti fraud tools without ever knowing it. A transaction approved instantly. A login flagged for extra verification. A payment delayed for review. These are all outputs of fraud decisioning.
When fraud tools work well, customers barely notice them. When they fail, customers notice immediately.
What Anti Fraud Tools Actually Do Day to Day
Anti fraud tools perform a set of core functions continuously.
1. Monitor behaviour in real time
Fraud rarely looks suspicious in isolation. It reveals itself through behaviour.
Anti fraud tools analyse:
- Login patterns
- Device usage
- Location changes
- Transaction timing
- Velocity of actions
- Sequence of events
A single transfer may look normal. A login followed by a password reset, a new payee addition, and a large payment within minutes tells a very different story.
2. Score risk continuously
Rather than issuing a single verdict, anti fraud tools often assign risk scores that change as behaviour evolves.
A customer might be low risk one moment and high risk the next based on:
- New device usage
- Unusual transaction size
- Changes in beneficiary details
- Failed authentication attempts
These scores guide whether activity is allowed, challenged, delayed, or blocked.
3. Trigger interventions
Anti fraud tools do not just detect. They intervene.
Interventions can include:
- Stepping up authentication
- Blocking transactions
- Pausing accounts
- Requiring manual review
- Alerting fraud teams
Each intervention must be carefully calibrated. Too many challenges frustrate customers. Too few create exposure.
4. Support fraud investigations
Not all fraud can be resolved automatically. When cases escalate, anti fraud tools provide investigators with:
- Behavioural timelines
- Event sequences
- Device and session context
- Transaction histories
- Risk indicators
The quality of this context determines how quickly teams can respond.
5. Learn from outcomes
Effective anti fraud tools improve over time.
They learn from:
- Confirmed fraud cases
- False positives
- Customer disputes
- Analyst decisions
This feedback loop is essential to staying ahead of evolving fraud tactics.
Why Fraud Is Harder Than Ever to Detect
Banks face a fraud landscape that is far more complex than a decade ago.
Customers are the new attack surface
Many fraud cases involve customers being tricked rather than systems being hacked. Social engineering has shifted risk from technology to human behaviour.
Speed leaves little room for correction
With instant payments and real time authorisation, fraud decisions must be right the first time.
Fraud and AML are increasingly connected
Scam proceeds often flow into laundering networks. Fraud detection cannot operate in isolation from broader financial crime intelligence.
Criminals adapt quickly
Fraudsters study controls, test thresholds, and adjust behaviour. Static rules lose effectiveness rapidly.
Where Anti Fraud Tools Commonly Fall Short
Even well funded fraud programs encounter challenges.
Excessive false positives
Rules designed to catch everything often catch too much. This leads to customer friction, operational overload, and declining trust in alerts.
Siloed data
Fraud tools that cannot see across channels miss context. Criminals exploit gaps between cards, payments, and digital banking.
Over reliance on static rules
Rules are predictable. Criminals adapt. Without behavioural intelligence, fraud tools fall behind.
Poor explainability
When analysts cannot understand why a decision was made, tuning becomes guesswork and trust erodes.
Disconnected fraud and AML teams
When fraud and AML operate in silos, patterns that span both domains remain hidden.
What Strong Anti Fraud Capability Looks Like in Practice
Banks with mature fraud programs share several characteristics.
Behaviour driven detection
Rather than relying solely on thresholds, strong tools understand normal behaviour and detect deviation.
Real time decisioning
Fraud systems operate at the speed of transactions, not in overnight batches.
Clear intervention strategies
Controls are tiered. Low risk activity flows smoothly. Medium risk triggers challenges. High risk is stopped decisively.
Analyst friendly investigations
Fraud teams see clear timelines, risk drivers, and supporting evidence without digging through multiple systems.
Continuous improvement
Models and rules evolve constantly based on new fraud patterns and outcomes.
The Intersection of Fraud and AML
Although fraud and AML serve different objectives, they increasingly intersect.
Fraud generates illicit funds.
AML tracks how those funds move.
When fraud tools detect:
- Scam victim behaviour
- Account takeover
- Mule recruitment activity
That intelligence becomes critical for AML monitoring downstream.
Banks that integrate fraud insights into AML systems gain a stronger view of financial crime risk.
Technology’s Role in Modern Anti Fraud Tools
Modern anti fraud tools rely on a combination of capabilities.
- Behavioural analytics
- Machine learning models
- Device intelligence
- Network analysis
- Real time processing
- Analyst feedback loops
The goal is not to replace human judgement, but to focus it where it matters most.
How Banks Strengthen Anti Fraud Capability Without Increasing Friction
Strong fraud programs focus on balance.
Reduce noise first
Lowering false positives improves both customer experience and analyst effectiveness.
Invest in explainability
Teams must understand why decisions are made to tune systems effectively.
Unify data sources
Fraud decisions improve when systems see the full customer journey.
Coordinate with AML teams
Sharing intelligence reduces blind spots and improves overall financial crime detection.
Where Tookitaki Fits in the Fraud Landscape
While Tookitaki is known primarily for AML and financial crime intelligence, its approach recognises the growing convergence between fraud and money laundering risk.
By leveraging behavioural intelligence, network analysis, and typology driven insights, Tookitaki’s FinCense platform helps institutions:
- Identify scam related behaviours early
- Detect mule activity that begins with fraud
- Share intelligence across the financial crime lifecycle
- Strengthen coordination between fraud and AML teams
This approach supports Australian institutions, including community owned banks such as Regional Australia Bank, in managing complex, cross-domain risk more effectively.
The Direction Anti Fraud Tools Are Heading
Anti fraud tools are evolving in three key directions.
More intelligence, less friction
Better detection means fewer unnecessary challenges for genuine customers.
Closer integration with AML
Fraud insights will increasingly inform laundering detection and vice versa.
Greater use of AI assistance
AI will help analysts understand cases faster, not replace them.
Conclusion
Anti fraud tools are often misunderstood as simple alert engines. In reality, they are among the most critical decision systems inside a bank, operating continuously at the intersection of risk, customer experience, and trust.
Strong anti fraud capability does not come from more rules or louder alerts. It comes from intelligent detection, real time decisioning, clear explainability, and close coordination with broader financial crime controls.
Banks that understand what anti fraud tools actually do, and design their systems accordingly, are better positioned to protect customers, reduce losses, and operate confidently in an increasingly complex risk environment.
Because in modern banking, fraud prevention is not a feature.
It is a discipline.
Counting the Cost: How AML Compliance is Reshaping Budgets in Singapore
Singapore's financial institutions are spending more than ever to stay compliant — but are they spending smart?
As financial crime grows in sophistication, the regulatory net is tightening. For banks and fintechs in Singapore, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance is no longer a checkbox—it’s a critical function that commands significant investment.
This blog takes a closer look at the real cost of AML compliance in Singapore, why it's rising, and what banks can do to reduce the burden without compromising risk controls.
What is AML Compliance, Really?
AML compliance refers to a financial institution’s obligation to detect, prevent, and report suspicious transactions that may be linked to money laundering or terrorism financing. This includes:
- Customer Due Diligence (CDD)
- Transaction Monitoring
- Screening for Sanctions, PEPs, and Adverse Media
- Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR)
- Regulatory Recordkeeping
In Singapore, these requirements are enforced by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) through Notices 626 (for banks) and 824 (for payment institutions), among others.
Why is the Cost of AML Compliance Increasing in Singapore?
AML compliance is expensive—and getting more so. The cost drivers include:
1. Expanding Regulatory Requirements
New MAS guidelines around technology risk, ESG-related AML risks, and digital banking supervision add more obligations to already stretched compliance teams.
2. Explosion in Transaction Volumes
With real-time payments (PayNow, FAST) and cross-border fintech growth, transaction monitoring systems must now scale to process millions of transactions daily.
3. Complex Typologies and Threats
Fraudsters are using social engineering, deepfakes, mule networks, and shell companies, requiring more advanced and layered detection mechanisms.
4. High False Positives
Legacy systems often flag benign transactions as suspicious, leading to investigation overload and inefficient resource allocation.
5. Talent Shortage
Hiring and retaining skilled compliance analysts and investigators in Singapore is costly due to demand outpacing supply.
6. Fines and Enforcement Risks
The reputational and financial risk of non-compliance remains high, pushing institutions to overcompensate with manual checks and expensive audits.
Breaking Down the Cost Elements
The total cost of AML compliance includes both direct and indirect expenses:
Direct Costs:
- Software licensing for AML platforms
- Customer onboarding (KYC/CDD) systems
- Transaction monitoring engines
- Screening databases (sanctions, PEPs, etc.)
- Regulatory reporting infrastructure
- Hiring and training compliance staff
Indirect Costs:
- Operational delays due to manual reviews
- Customer friction due to false positives
- Reputational risks from late filings or missed STRs
- Opportunity cost of delayed product rollouts due to compliance constraints
Hidden Costs: The Compliance Drag on Innovation
One of the less discussed impacts of rising AML costs is the drag on digital transformation. Fintechs and neobanks, which are built for agility, often find themselves slowed down by:
- Lengthy CDD processes
- Rigid compliance architectures
- Manual STR documentation
This can undermine user experience, onboarding speed, and cross-border expansion.
Singapore’s Compliance Spending Compared Globally
While Singapore’s market is smaller than the US or EU, its AML compliance burden is proportionally high due to:
- Its position as an international financial hub
- High exposure to cross-border flows
- Rigorous MAS enforcement standards
According to industry estimates, large banks in Singapore spend between 4 to 7 percent of their operational budgets on compliance, with AML being the single biggest contributor.
Technology as a Cost-Optimiser, Not Just a Cost Centre
Rather than treating AML systems as cost centres, leading institutions in Singapore are now using intelligent technology to reduce costs while enhancing effectiveness. These include:
1. AI-Powered Transaction Monitoring
- Reduces false positives by understanding behavioural patterns
- Automates threshold tuning based on past data
2. Federated Learning Models
- Learn from fraud and laundering typologies across banks without sharing raw data
3. AI Copilots for Investigations
- Tools like Tookitaki’s FinMate surface relevant case context and narrate findings automatically
- Improve investigator productivity by up to 3x
4. Scenario-Based Typologies
- Enable proactive detection of specific threats like mule networks or BEC fraud
Tookitaki’s Approach to Reducing AML Compliance Costs
Tookitaki’s FinCense platform offers a modular, AI-driven compliance suite purpose-built for financial institutions in Singapore and beyond. Here’s how it helps reduce cost while increasing coverage:
- Smart Disposition Engine reduces investigation times through natural language summaries
- Federated AI shares typologies without violating data privacy laws
- Unified platform for AML and fraud lowers integration and training costs
- Plug-and-play scenarios allow quick rollout for new threat types
Real-world impact:
- Up to 72% reduction in false positives
- 3.5x improvement in analyst productivity
- Significant savings in training and STR documentation time
How Regulators View Cost vs. Compliance
While MAS expects full compliance, it also encourages innovation and risk-based approaches. Their FinTech Regulatory Sandbox and support for AI-powered RegTech solutions signal a willingness to:
- Balance oversight with efficiency
- Encourage public-private collaboration
- Support digital-first compliance architectures
This is an opportunity for Singapore’s institutions to move beyond traditional, high-cost models.
Five Strategies to Optimise AML Spend
- Invest in Explainable AI: Improve detection without creating audit blind spots
- Use Federated Typologies: Tap into industry-wide risk intelligence
- Unify AML and Fraud: Eliminate duplication in alerts and investigations
- Adopt Modular Compliance Tools: Scale capabilities as your institution grows
- Train with AI Assistants: Reduce dependency on large teams for investigations
Final Thoughts: From Compliance Cost to Competitive Edge
AML compliance will always involve cost, but the institutions that treat it as a strategic capability rather than a regulatory burden are the ones that will thrive.
With smarter tools, shared intelligence, and a modular approach, Singapore’s financial ecosystem can build a new model—one where compliance is faster, cheaper, and more intelligent.
Bank AML Compliance: What It Really Looks Like Inside a Bank
AML compliance is not a policy document. It is the sum of thousands of decisions made every day inside a bank.
Introduction
Ask most people what bank AML compliance looks like, and they will describe policies, procedures, regulatory obligations, and reporting timelines. They will talk about AUSTRAC, risk assessments, transaction monitoring, and suspicious matter reports.
All of that is true.
And yet, it misses the point.
Inside a bank, AML compliance is not experienced as a framework. It is experienced as work. It lives in daily trade-offs, judgement calls, time pressure, alert queues, imperfect data, and the constant need to balance risk, customer impact, and regulatory expectations.
This blog looks beyond the formal definition of bank AML compliance and into how it actually functions inside Australian banks. Not how it is meant to work on paper, but how it works in practice, and what separates strong AML compliance programs from those that quietly struggle.
AML Compliance Is a Living System, Not a Static Requirement
In theory, AML compliance is straightforward.
Banks assess risk, monitor activity, investigate suspicious behaviour, and report where required.
In reality, compliance operates as a living system made up of people, processes, data, and technology. Each component affects the others.
When one part weakens, the entire system feels the strain.
Strong AML compliance is not about having the longest policy manual. It is about whether the system holds together under real operational pressure.
The Daily Reality of AML Compliance Teams
To understand bank AML compliance, it helps to look at what teams deal with every day.
Alert volume never stands still
Transaction monitoring systems generate alerts continuously. Some are meaningful. Many are not. Analysts must quickly decide which deserve deeper investigation and which can be cleared.
The quality of AML compliance often depends less on how many alerts are generated and more on how well teams can prioritise and resolve them.
Data is rarely perfect
Customer profiles change. Transaction descriptions are inconsistent. External data arrives late or incomplete. Behaviour does not always fit neat patterns.
Compliance teams work with imperfect information and are expected to reach defensible conclusions anyway.
Time pressure is constant
Reporting timelines are fixed. Regulatory expectations do not flex when volumes spike. Teams must deliver consistent quality even during scam waves, system upgrades, or staff shortages.
Judgement matters
Despite automation, AML compliance still relies heavily on human judgement. Analysts decide whether behaviour is suspicious, whether context explains an anomaly, and whether escalation is necessary.
Strong compliance programs support judgement. Weak ones overwhelm it.
Where AML Compliance Most Often Breaks Down
In Australian banks, AML compliance failures rarely happen because teams do not care or policies do not exist. They happen because the system does not support the work.
1. Weak risk foundations
If customer risk assessment at onboarding is simplistic or outdated, monitoring becomes noisy and unfocused. Low risk customers are over monitored, while genuine risk hides in plain sight.
2. Fragmented workflows
When detection, investigation, and reporting tools are disconnected, analysts spend more time navigating systems than analysing risk. Context is lost and decisions become inconsistent.
3. Excessive false positives
Rules designed to be safe often trigger too broadly. Analysts clear large volumes of benign alerts, which increases fatigue and reduces sensitivity to genuine risk.
4. Inconsistent investigation quality
Without clear structure, two analysts may investigate the same pattern differently. This inconsistency creates audit exposure and weakens confidence in the compliance program.
5. Reactive compliance posture
Some programs operate in constant response mode, reacting to regulatory feedback or incidents rather than proactively strengthening controls.
What Strong Bank AML Compliance Actually Looks Like
When AML compliance works well, it feels different inside the organisation.
Risk is clearly understood
Customer risk profiles are meaningful and influence monitoring behaviour. Analysts know why a customer is considered high, medium, or low risk.
Alerts are prioritised intelligently
Not all alerts are treated equally. Systems surface what matters most, allowing teams to focus their attention where risk is highest.
Investigations are structured
Cases follow consistent workflows. Evidence is organised. Rationales are clear. Decisions can be explained months or years later.
Technology supports judgement
Systems reduce noise, surface context, and assist analysts rather than overwhelming them with raw data.
Compliance and business teams communicate
AML compliance does not operate in isolation. Product teams, operations, and customer service understand why controls exist and how to support them.
Regulatory interactions are confident
When regulators ask questions, teams can explain decisions clearly, trace actions, and demonstrate how controls align with risk.
AUSTRAC Expectations and the Reality on the Ground
AUSTRAC expects banks to take a risk based approach to AML compliance. This means controls should be proportionate, explainable, and aligned with actual risk exposure.
In practice, this requires banks to show:
- How customer risk is assessed
- How that risk influences monitoring
- How alerts are investigated
- How decisions are documented
- How suspicious matters are escalated and reported
The strongest programs embed these expectations into daily operations, not just into policy documents.
The Human Side of AML Compliance
AML compliance is often discussed in technical terms, but it is deeply human work.
Analysts:
- Review sensitive information
- Make decisions that affect customers
- Work under regulatory scrutiny
- Manage high workloads
- Balance caution with practicality
Programs that ignore this reality tend to struggle. Programs that design processes and technology around how people actually work tend to perform better.
Supporting AML teams means:
- Reducing unnecessary noise
- Providing clear context
- Offering structured guidance
- Investing in training and consistency
- Using technology to amplify judgement, not replace it
Technology’s Role in Modern Bank AML Compliance
Technology does not define compliance, but it shapes what is possible.
Modern AML platforms help banks by:
- Improving risk segmentation
- Reducing false positives
- Providing behavioural insights
- Supporting consistent investigations
- Maintaining strong audit trails
- Enabling timely regulatory reporting
The key is alignment. Technology must reflect how compliance operates, not force teams into unnatural workflows.
How Banks Mature Their AML Compliance Without Burning Out Teams
Banks that successfully strengthen AML compliance tend to focus on gradual, sustainable improvements.
1. Start with risk clarity
Refine customer risk assessment and onboarding logic. Better foundations improve everything downstream.
2. Focus on alert quality, not quantity
Reducing false positives has a bigger impact than adding new rules.
3. Standardise investigations
Clear workflows and narratives improve consistency and defensibility.
4. Invest in explainability
Systems that clearly explain why alerts were triggered reduce friction with regulators and auditors.
5. Treat compliance as a capability
Strong AML compliance is built over time through learning, refinement, and collaboration.
Where Tookitaki Fits Into the AML Compliance Picture
Tookitaki supports bank AML compliance by focusing on the parts of the system that most affect daily operations.
Through the FinCense platform, banks can:
- Apply behaviour driven risk detection
- Reduce noise and prioritise meaningful alerts
- Support consistent, explainable investigations
- Maintain strong audit trails
- Align controls with evolving typologies
This approach helps Australian institutions, including community owned banks such as Regional Australia Bank, strengthen AML compliance without overloading teams or relying solely on rigid rules.
The Direction Bank AML Compliance Is Heading
Bank AML compliance in Australia is moving toward:
- More intelligence and less volume
- Stronger integration across the AML lifecycle
- Better support for human judgement
- Clearer accountability and governance
- Continuous adaptation to emerging risks
The most effective programs recognise that compliance is not something a bank finishes building. It is something a bank continually improves.
Conclusion
Bank AML compliance is often described in frameworks and obligations, but it is lived through daily decisions made by people working with imperfect information under real pressure.
Strong AML compliance is not about perfection. It is about resilience, clarity, and consistency. It is about building systems that support judgement, reduce noise, and stand up to scrutiny.
Australian banks that understand this reality and design their AML programs accordingly are better positioned to manage risk, protect customers, and maintain regulatory confidence.
Because in the end, AML compliance is not just about meeting requirements.
It is about how well a bank operates when it matters most.
Anti Fraud Tools: What They Actually Do Inside a Bank
Anti fraud tools are not shiny dashboards or alert engines. They are decision systems working under constant pressure, every second of every day.
Introduction
Anti fraud tools are often described as if they were shields. Buy the right technology, deploy the right rules, and fraud risk is contained. In practice, fraud prevention inside a bank looks very different.
Fraud does not arrive politely. It moves quickly, exploits customer behaviour, adapts to controls, and takes advantage of moments when systems or people hesitate. Anti fraud tools sit at the centre of this environment, making split-second decisions that affect customers, revenue, and trust.
This blog looks past vendor brochures and feature lists to examine what anti fraud tools actually do inside a bank. Not how they are marketed, but how they operate day to day, where they succeed, where they struggle, and what strong fraud capability really looks like in practice.
Anti Fraud Tools Are Decision Engines, Not Detection Toys
At their core, anti fraud tools exist to answer one question.
Is this activity safe to allow right now?
Every fraud decision carries consequences. Block too aggressively and genuine customers are frustrated. Allow too freely and fraud losses escalate. Anti fraud tools constantly balance this tension.
Unlike many compliance controls, fraud systems often operate in real time. They must make decisions before money moves, accounts are accessed, or payments are authorised. There is no luxury of post-event investigation.
This makes anti fraud tools fundamentally different from many other risk systems.
Where Anti Fraud Tools Sit in the Bank
Inside a bank, anti fraud tools are deeply embedded across customer journeys.
They operate across:
- Card payments
- Online and mobile banking
- Account logins
- Password resets
- Payee changes
- Domestic transfers
- Real time payments
- Merchant transactions
Most customers interact with anti fraud tools without ever knowing it. A transaction approved instantly. A login flagged for extra verification. A payment delayed for review. These are all outputs of fraud decisioning.
When fraud tools work well, customers barely notice them. When they fail, customers notice immediately.
What Anti Fraud Tools Actually Do Day to Day
Anti fraud tools perform a set of core functions continuously.
1. Monitor behaviour in real time
Fraud rarely looks suspicious in isolation. It reveals itself through behaviour.
Anti fraud tools analyse:
- Login patterns
- Device usage
- Location changes
- Transaction timing
- Velocity of actions
- Sequence of events
A single transfer may look normal. A login followed by a password reset, a new payee addition, and a large payment within minutes tells a very different story.
2. Score risk continuously
Rather than issuing a single verdict, anti fraud tools often assign risk scores that change as behaviour evolves.
A customer might be low risk one moment and high risk the next based on:
- New device usage
- Unusual transaction size
- Changes in beneficiary details
- Failed authentication attempts
These scores guide whether activity is allowed, challenged, delayed, or blocked.
3. Trigger interventions
Anti fraud tools do not just detect. They intervene.
Interventions can include:
- Stepping up authentication
- Blocking transactions
- Pausing accounts
- Requiring manual review
- Alerting fraud teams
Each intervention must be carefully calibrated. Too many challenges frustrate customers. Too few create exposure.
4. Support fraud investigations
Not all fraud can be resolved automatically. When cases escalate, anti fraud tools provide investigators with:
- Behavioural timelines
- Event sequences
- Device and session context
- Transaction histories
- Risk indicators
The quality of this context determines how quickly teams can respond.
5. Learn from outcomes
Effective anti fraud tools improve over time.
They learn from:
- Confirmed fraud cases
- False positives
- Customer disputes
- Analyst decisions
This feedback loop is essential to staying ahead of evolving fraud tactics.
Why Fraud Is Harder Than Ever to Detect
Banks face a fraud landscape that is far more complex than a decade ago.
Customers are the new attack surface
Many fraud cases involve customers being tricked rather than systems being hacked. Social engineering has shifted risk from technology to human behaviour.
Speed leaves little room for correction
With instant payments and real time authorisation, fraud decisions must be right the first time.
Fraud and AML are increasingly connected
Scam proceeds often flow into laundering networks. Fraud detection cannot operate in isolation from broader financial crime intelligence.
Criminals adapt quickly
Fraudsters study controls, test thresholds, and adjust behaviour. Static rules lose effectiveness rapidly.
Where Anti Fraud Tools Commonly Fall Short
Even well funded fraud programs encounter challenges.
Excessive false positives
Rules designed to catch everything often catch too much. This leads to customer friction, operational overload, and declining trust in alerts.
Siloed data
Fraud tools that cannot see across channels miss context. Criminals exploit gaps between cards, payments, and digital banking.
Over reliance on static rules
Rules are predictable. Criminals adapt. Without behavioural intelligence, fraud tools fall behind.
Poor explainability
When analysts cannot understand why a decision was made, tuning becomes guesswork and trust erodes.
Disconnected fraud and AML teams
When fraud and AML operate in silos, patterns that span both domains remain hidden.
What Strong Anti Fraud Capability Looks Like in Practice
Banks with mature fraud programs share several characteristics.
Behaviour driven detection
Rather than relying solely on thresholds, strong tools understand normal behaviour and detect deviation.
Real time decisioning
Fraud systems operate at the speed of transactions, not in overnight batches.
Clear intervention strategies
Controls are tiered. Low risk activity flows smoothly. Medium risk triggers challenges. High risk is stopped decisively.
Analyst friendly investigations
Fraud teams see clear timelines, risk drivers, and supporting evidence without digging through multiple systems.
Continuous improvement
Models and rules evolve constantly based on new fraud patterns and outcomes.
The Intersection of Fraud and AML
Although fraud and AML serve different objectives, they increasingly intersect.
Fraud generates illicit funds.
AML tracks how those funds move.
When fraud tools detect:
- Scam victim behaviour
- Account takeover
- Mule recruitment activity
That intelligence becomes critical for AML monitoring downstream.
Banks that integrate fraud insights into AML systems gain a stronger view of financial crime risk.
Technology’s Role in Modern Anti Fraud Tools
Modern anti fraud tools rely on a combination of capabilities.
- Behavioural analytics
- Machine learning models
- Device intelligence
- Network analysis
- Real time processing
- Analyst feedback loops
The goal is not to replace human judgement, but to focus it where it matters most.
How Banks Strengthen Anti Fraud Capability Without Increasing Friction
Strong fraud programs focus on balance.
Reduce noise first
Lowering false positives improves both customer experience and analyst effectiveness.
Invest in explainability
Teams must understand why decisions are made to tune systems effectively.
Unify data sources
Fraud decisions improve when systems see the full customer journey.
Coordinate with AML teams
Sharing intelligence reduces blind spots and improves overall financial crime detection.
Where Tookitaki Fits in the Fraud Landscape
While Tookitaki is known primarily for AML and financial crime intelligence, its approach recognises the growing convergence between fraud and money laundering risk.
By leveraging behavioural intelligence, network analysis, and typology driven insights, Tookitaki’s FinCense platform helps institutions:
- Identify scam related behaviours early
- Detect mule activity that begins with fraud
- Share intelligence across the financial crime lifecycle
- Strengthen coordination between fraud and AML teams
This approach supports Australian institutions, including community owned banks such as Regional Australia Bank, in managing complex, cross-domain risk more effectively.
The Direction Anti Fraud Tools Are Heading
Anti fraud tools are evolving in three key directions.
More intelligence, less friction
Better detection means fewer unnecessary challenges for genuine customers.
Closer integration with AML
Fraud insights will increasingly inform laundering detection and vice versa.
Greater use of AI assistance
AI will help analysts understand cases faster, not replace them.
Conclusion
Anti fraud tools are often misunderstood as simple alert engines. In reality, they are among the most critical decision systems inside a bank, operating continuously at the intersection of risk, customer experience, and trust.
Strong anti fraud capability does not come from more rules or louder alerts. It comes from intelligent detection, real time decisioning, clear explainability, and close coordination with broader financial crime controls.
Banks that understand what anti fraud tools actually do, and design their systems accordingly, are better positioned to protect customers, reduce losses, and operate confidently in an increasingly complex risk environment.
Because in modern banking, fraud prevention is not a feature.
It is a discipline.
Counting the Cost: How AML Compliance is Reshaping Budgets in Singapore
Singapore's financial institutions are spending more than ever to stay compliant — but are they spending smart?
As financial crime grows in sophistication, the regulatory net is tightening. For banks and fintechs in Singapore, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance is no longer a checkbox—it’s a critical function that commands significant investment.
This blog takes a closer look at the real cost of AML compliance in Singapore, why it's rising, and what banks can do to reduce the burden without compromising risk controls.
What is AML Compliance, Really?
AML compliance refers to a financial institution’s obligation to detect, prevent, and report suspicious transactions that may be linked to money laundering or terrorism financing. This includes:
- Customer Due Diligence (CDD)
- Transaction Monitoring
- Screening for Sanctions, PEPs, and Adverse Media
- Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR)
- Regulatory Recordkeeping
In Singapore, these requirements are enforced by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) through Notices 626 (for banks) and 824 (for payment institutions), among others.
Why is the Cost of AML Compliance Increasing in Singapore?
AML compliance is expensive—and getting more so. The cost drivers include:
1. Expanding Regulatory Requirements
New MAS guidelines around technology risk, ESG-related AML risks, and digital banking supervision add more obligations to already stretched compliance teams.
2. Explosion in Transaction Volumes
With real-time payments (PayNow, FAST) and cross-border fintech growth, transaction monitoring systems must now scale to process millions of transactions daily.
3. Complex Typologies and Threats
Fraudsters are using social engineering, deepfakes, mule networks, and shell companies, requiring more advanced and layered detection mechanisms.
4. High False Positives
Legacy systems often flag benign transactions as suspicious, leading to investigation overload and inefficient resource allocation.
5. Talent Shortage
Hiring and retaining skilled compliance analysts and investigators in Singapore is costly due to demand outpacing supply.
6. Fines and Enforcement Risks
The reputational and financial risk of non-compliance remains high, pushing institutions to overcompensate with manual checks and expensive audits.
Breaking Down the Cost Elements
The total cost of AML compliance includes both direct and indirect expenses:
Direct Costs:
- Software licensing for AML platforms
- Customer onboarding (KYC/CDD) systems
- Transaction monitoring engines
- Screening databases (sanctions, PEPs, etc.)
- Regulatory reporting infrastructure
- Hiring and training compliance staff
Indirect Costs:
- Operational delays due to manual reviews
- Customer friction due to false positives
- Reputational risks from late filings or missed STRs
- Opportunity cost of delayed product rollouts due to compliance constraints
Hidden Costs: The Compliance Drag on Innovation
One of the less discussed impacts of rising AML costs is the drag on digital transformation. Fintechs and neobanks, which are built for agility, often find themselves slowed down by:
- Lengthy CDD processes
- Rigid compliance architectures
- Manual STR documentation
This can undermine user experience, onboarding speed, and cross-border expansion.
Singapore’s Compliance Spending Compared Globally
While Singapore’s market is smaller than the US or EU, its AML compliance burden is proportionally high due to:
- Its position as an international financial hub
- High exposure to cross-border flows
- Rigorous MAS enforcement standards
According to industry estimates, large banks in Singapore spend between 4 to 7 percent of their operational budgets on compliance, with AML being the single biggest contributor.
Technology as a Cost-Optimiser, Not Just a Cost Centre
Rather than treating AML systems as cost centres, leading institutions in Singapore are now using intelligent technology to reduce costs while enhancing effectiveness. These include:
1. AI-Powered Transaction Monitoring
- Reduces false positives by understanding behavioural patterns
- Automates threshold tuning based on past data
2. Federated Learning Models
- Learn from fraud and laundering typologies across banks without sharing raw data
3. AI Copilots for Investigations
- Tools like Tookitaki’s FinMate surface relevant case context and narrate findings automatically
- Improve investigator productivity by up to 3x
4. Scenario-Based Typologies
- Enable proactive detection of specific threats like mule networks or BEC fraud
Tookitaki’s Approach to Reducing AML Compliance Costs
Tookitaki’s FinCense platform offers a modular, AI-driven compliance suite purpose-built for financial institutions in Singapore and beyond. Here’s how it helps reduce cost while increasing coverage:
- Smart Disposition Engine reduces investigation times through natural language summaries
- Federated AI shares typologies without violating data privacy laws
- Unified platform for AML and fraud lowers integration and training costs
- Plug-and-play scenarios allow quick rollout for new threat types
Real-world impact:
- Up to 72% reduction in false positives
- 3.5x improvement in analyst productivity
- Significant savings in training and STR documentation time
How Regulators View Cost vs. Compliance
While MAS expects full compliance, it also encourages innovation and risk-based approaches. Their FinTech Regulatory Sandbox and support for AI-powered RegTech solutions signal a willingness to:
- Balance oversight with efficiency
- Encourage public-private collaboration
- Support digital-first compliance architectures
This is an opportunity for Singapore’s institutions to move beyond traditional, high-cost models.
Five Strategies to Optimise AML Spend
- Invest in Explainable AI: Improve detection without creating audit blind spots
- Use Federated Typologies: Tap into industry-wide risk intelligence
- Unify AML and Fraud: Eliminate duplication in alerts and investigations
- Adopt Modular Compliance Tools: Scale capabilities as your institution grows
- Train with AI Assistants: Reduce dependency on large teams for investigations
Final Thoughts: From Compliance Cost to Competitive Edge
AML compliance will always involve cost, but the institutions that treat it as a strategic capability rather than a regulatory burden are the ones that will thrive.
With smarter tools, shared intelligence, and a modular approach, Singapore’s financial ecosystem can build a new model—one where compliance is faster, cheaper, and more intelligent.
Bank AML Compliance: What It Really Looks Like Inside a Bank
AML compliance is not a policy document. It is the sum of thousands of decisions made every day inside a bank.
Introduction
Ask most people what bank AML compliance looks like, and they will describe policies, procedures, regulatory obligations, and reporting timelines. They will talk about AUSTRAC, risk assessments, transaction monitoring, and suspicious matter reports.
All of that is true.
And yet, it misses the point.
Inside a bank, AML compliance is not experienced as a framework. It is experienced as work. It lives in daily trade-offs, judgement calls, time pressure, alert queues, imperfect data, and the constant need to balance risk, customer impact, and regulatory expectations.
This blog looks beyond the formal definition of bank AML compliance and into how it actually functions inside Australian banks. Not how it is meant to work on paper, but how it works in practice, and what separates strong AML compliance programs from those that quietly struggle.
AML Compliance Is a Living System, Not a Static Requirement
In theory, AML compliance is straightforward.
Banks assess risk, monitor activity, investigate suspicious behaviour, and report where required.
In reality, compliance operates as a living system made up of people, processes, data, and technology. Each component affects the others.
When one part weakens, the entire system feels the strain.
Strong AML compliance is not about having the longest policy manual. It is about whether the system holds together under real operational pressure.
The Daily Reality of AML Compliance Teams
To understand bank AML compliance, it helps to look at what teams deal with every day.
Alert volume never stands still
Transaction monitoring systems generate alerts continuously. Some are meaningful. Many are not. Analysts must quickly decide which deserve deeper investigation and which can be cleared.
The quality of AML compliance often depends less on how many alerts are generated and more on how well teams can prioritise and resolve them.
Data is rarely perfect
Customer profiles change. Transaction descriptions are inconsistent. External data arrives late or incomplete. Behaviour does not always fit neat patterns.
Compliance teams work with imperfect information and are expected to reach defensible conclusions anyway.
Time pressure is constant
Reporting timelines are fixed. Regulatory expectations do not flex when volumes spike. Teams must deliver consistent quality even during scam waves, system upgrades, or staff shortages.
Judgement matters
Despite automation, AML compliance still relies heavily on human judgement. Analysts decide whether behaviour is suspicious, whether context explains an anomaly, and whether escalation is necessary.
Strong compliance programs support judgement. Weak ones overwhelm it.
Where AML Compliance Most Often Breaks Down
In Australian banks, AML compliance failures rarely happen because teams do not care or policies do not exist. They happen because the system does not support the work.
1. Weak risk foundations
If customer risk assessment at onboarding is simplistic or outdated, monitoring becomes noisy and unfocused. Low risk customers are over monitored, while genuine risk hides in plain sight.
2. Fragmented workflows
When detection, investigation, and reporting tools are disconnected, analysts spend more time navigating systems than analysing risk. Context is lost and decisions become inconsistent.
3. Excessive false positives
Rules designed to be safe often trigger too broadly. Analysts clear large volumes of benign alerts, which increases fatigue and reduces sensitivity to genuine risk.
4. Inconsistent investigation quality
Without clear structure, two analysts may investigate the same pattern differently. This inconsistency creates audit exposure and weakens confidence in the compliance program.
5. Reactive compliance posture
Some programs operate in constant response mode, reacting to regulatory feedback or incidents rather than proactively strengthening controls.
What Strong Bank AML Compliance Actually Looks Like
When AML compliance works well, it feels different inside the organisation.
Risk is clearly understood
Customer risk profiles are meaningful and influence monitoring behaviour. Analysts know why a customer is considered high, medium, or low risk.
Alerts are prioritised intelligently
Not all alerts are treated equally. Systems surface what matters most, allowing teams to focus their attention where risk is highest.
Investigations are structured
Cases follow consistent workflows. Evidence is organised. Rationales are clear. Decisions can be explained months or years later.
Technology supports judgement
Systems reduce noise, surface context, and assist analysts rather than overwhelming them with raw data.
Compliance and business teams communicate
AML compliance does not operate in isolation. Product teams, operations, and customer service understand why controls exist and how to support them.
Regulatory interactions are confident
When regulators ask questions, teams can explain decisions clearly, trace actions, and demonstrate how controls align with risk.
AUSTRAC Expectations and the Reality on the Ground
AUSTRAC expects banks to take a risk based approach to AML compliance. This means controls should be proportionate, explainable, and aligned with actual risk exposure.
In practice, this requires banks to show:
- How customer risk is assessed
- How that risk influences monitoring
- How alerts are investigated
- How decisions are documented
- How suspicious matters are escalated and reported
The strongest programs embed these expectations into daily operations, not just into policy documents.
The Human Side of AML Compliance
AML compliance is often discussed in technical terms, but it is deeply human work.
Analysts:
- Review sensitive information
- Make decisions that affect customers
- Work under regulatory scrutiny
- Manage high workloads
- Balance caution with practicality
Programs that ignore this reality tend to struggle. Programs that design processes and technology around how people actually work tend to perform better.
Supporting AML teams means:
- Reducing unnecessary noise
- Providing clear context
- Offering structured guidance
- Investing in training and consistency
- Using technology to amplify judgement, not replace it
Technology’s Role in Modern Bank AML Compliance
Technology does not define compliance, but it shapes what is possible.
Modern AML platforms help banks by:
- Improving risk segmentation
- Reducing false positives
- Providing behavioural insights
- Supporting consistent investigations
- Maintaining strong audit trails
- Enabling timely regulatory reporting
The key is alignment. Technology must reflect how compliance operates, not force teams into unnatural workflows.
How Banks Mature Their AML Compliance Without Burning Out Teams
Banks that successfully strengthen AML compliance tend to focus on gradual, sustainable improvements.
1. Start with risk clarity
Refine customer risk assessment and onboarding logic. Better foundations improve everything downstream.
2. Focus on alert quality, not quantity
Reducing false positives has a bigger impact than adding new rules.
3. Standardise investigations
Clear workflows and narratives improve consistency and defensibility.
4. Invest in explainability
Systems that clearly explain why alerts were triggered reduce friction with regulators and auditors.
5. Treat compliance as a capability
Strong AML compliance is built over time through learning, refinement, and collaboration.
Where Tookitaki Fits Into the AML Compliance Picture
Tookitaki supports bank AML compliance by focusing on the parts of the system that most affect daily operations.
Through the FinCense platform, banks can:
- Apply behaviour driven risk detection
- Reduce noise and prioritise meaningful alerts
- Support consistent, explainable investigations
- Maintain strong audit trails
- Align controls with evolving typologies
This approach helps Australian institutions, including community owned banks such as Regional Australia Bank, strengthen AML compliance without overloading teams or relying solely on rigid rules.
The Direction Bank AML Compliance Is Heading
Bank AML compliance in Australia is moving toward:
- More intelligence and less volume
- Stronger integration across the AML lifecycle
- Better support for human judgement
- Clearer accountability and governance
- Continuous adaptation to emerging risks
The most effective programs recognise that compliance is not something a bank finishes building. It is something a bank continually improves.
Conclusion
Bank AML compliance is often described in frameworks and obligations, but it is lived through daily decisions made by people working with imperfect information under real pressure.
Strong AML compliance is not about perfection. It is about resilience, clarity, and consistency. It is about building systems that support judgement, reduce noise, and stand up to scrutiny.
Australian banks that understand this reality and design their AML programs accordingly are better positioned to manage risk, protect customers, and maintain regulatory confidence.
Because in the end, AML compliance is not just about meeting requirements.
It is about how well a bank operates when it matters most.