Financial Crime Controls Are Only as Strong as the People Behind Them

Despite billions spent on financial crime technology, regulatory fines continue to rise—because systems don’t make judgement calls, people do.

Why Technology Alone Is Not Enough

Advanced monitoring systems generate alerts, but humans decide how to act on them. Regulators frequently cite failures caused by:

  • Poor judgement
  • Inconsistent escalation
  • Weak oversight
  • Inadequate training

These are capability gaps, not software failures.

The Importance of Practitioner Judgement

Financial crime roles require nuanced decision-making under pressure. Analysts and investigators must assess incomplete information, identify risk patterns, and justify outcomes.

Training must focus on real-world scenarios, not just policies.

Building Role-Specific Capability

Effective financial crime frameworks develop skills by role:

  • Analysts: alert analysis and typology recognition
  • Investigators: evidence evaluation and reporting
  • Managers: quality assurance and escalation decisions
  • Leaders: governance and risk appetite oversight

Targeted learning improves consistency and confidence.

Producing Evidence Regulators Expect

Modern regulators expect proof of effectiveness. Strong programmes generate:

  • Decision rationales
  • Consistent documentation
  • Performance metrics
  • Clear audit trails

This turns training into a measurable control.