What is it about?
New research constructively critiques the global method for evaluating the effectiveness of anti-money laundering regimes. There is a dearth of scholarship whether the new global AML/CFT ‘effectiveness’ framework is sufficiently robust to assess effectiveness as it purports. This article begins addressing that gap. It combines outcomes/effectiveness and AML disciplines and uses recent mutual evaluations to assess the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF's) anti-money laundering ‘effectiveness’ methodology.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Why is it important?
If the “outcomes” of the “effectiveness” framework do not match the crime and terrorism prevention policy goals of nation states, the new “main” component for assessing the effectiveness of anti-money laundering regimes potentially detracts focus and resources from, rather than towards, intended policy objectives.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Anti-money laundering effectiveness: assessing outcomes or ticking boxes?, Journal of Money Laundering Control, May 2018, Emerald, DOI: 10.1108/jmlc-07-2017-0029.
You can read the full text:
The only site about anti-money laundering effectiveness curated by someone with a PhD in AML effectiveness, quoted in The Economist, Forbes, Politico, Reuters, and US Senate testimony describing the modern anti-money laundering experiment as arguably the least effective anti-crime measure, anywhere, ever. Profound failure, however, signals opportunity for profound value: an order of magnitude reduction in crime, harm, regulatory risk, and compliance costs.
The following have contributed to this page