Some financial services boards see compliance as a nonrevenue-generating function and slash compliance spending wherever possible. So, AML leaders must take a proactive approach when communicating the value of the compliance work being done.
That communication should begin with detailed board and management reporting that shows exactly where AML compliance spending and AML audits are helping the organization identify and mitigate risks that could affect the organization’s health and profitability.
AML program leaders and chief audit executives need to make clear the bottom-line benefits of a proactive AML compliance and risk management approach. Regulatory violations related to anti-money laundering can generate fines, penalties, and reputational harm and force the bank into a reactive, defensive position where growth and strategic options become very limited. Regulatory concerns over an organization’s AML compliance practices can halt a planned merger or acquisition.
In addition, a strong BSA/AML compliance program can build stakeholder and customer confidence, which is more critical than ever in the current environment. In light of recent high-profile bank failures and bank seizures, many organizations are refocusing on risk and compliance. Decision-makers are taking more seriously the consequences that might occur when innovation and growth strategies outpace the organization’s risk and compliance protocols.
An ongoing review of effective AML audit processes and controls can demonstrate the strength of the business to stakeholders and regulators alike. So, yes, organizations should check the boxes when it comes to AML – but they should do it effectively, efficiently, and thoughtfully to build confidence with stakeholders and demonstrate the strength of the compliance program to regulators.