09 December 2016
Visit aciworldwide.com

Sanctions screening costs doubling every four years - Swift

27 November 2012  |  10341 views  |  1 STOP

The operational costs of sanctions compliance to financial services firms is doubling every four years, according to data compiled by interbank co-operative Swift.

Financial institutions are increasingly seen as the front line in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Sanctions lists themselves are not particularly large, says Swift, amounting to about 40,000 distinct names and synonyms. However, when you apply possible fuzzy matching to searches (to account for potential misspellings, phonetic similarities etc) this generates an equivalent of 4,000,000,000,000 possible names that filters must screen.

"Swift data reveals the growth in number of transactions worldwide," says the financial messaging utility in a white paper on the subject. "By correlating that with the rising number of watchlists, we estimate that the cost of sanctions compliance at financial institutions will double every four years."

Swift introduced its own sanctions testing tool in October.

Nicolas Stuckens, manager, AML & sanctions initiatives, Swift, comments: "Sanctions lists evolve daily and the number of transactions that need to be screened is rising rapidly. Banks are expected to keep up and tune their sanctions filter in line with their risk appetite, so it has never been more important that systems and processes are effective and efficient."

Comments: (1)

Tony Tarquini
Tony Tarquini - Pegasystems - Reading | 29 November, 2012, 14:56

Banks use sanction lists to screen against individuals, companies, governments and other groups including terrorists using SWIFT for
financial transactions. SWIFT is right - these lists are getting ever more
complex and larger as they take account of constantly evolving sanction
policies, criminal money laundering behaviour and the need to account for all potential misspelling and other variations.

However, it is very far from being the case that as sanctions increase, so operational costs HAVE TO increase.

Banks can do much more to mitigate against increased operational costs: Whether they like it or not, sanctions screening is going to remain a feature of international banking. Indeed the blizzard of checks is going to intensify, and become much more complicated to check against. While the work is essential, clearly these are operational pressures that banks must alleviate if at all possible. 

The reason banks can do more to mitigate the operational
costs is because too often they allow sanction screening to include too much manual intervention that could be automated. Also, embracing a rules-based approach to designing sanctions screening systems can enable banks to adapt to changes in sanction regimes in a much more agile and cost effective way. If the rules are designed for maximum reuse (by stacking the rules – generic at the bottom and becoming more situationally specific towards the top) maintenance is significantly streamlined and costs reduced.

As a result, the banks who already lead the way in this
area by implementing these types of compliance strategies are playing a much more effective part in enforcing the rules critical to the fights against crime and terror, without it becoming an uncontrollable monster.

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
Comment on this story (membership required)

Finextra news in your inbox

For Finextra's free daily newsletter, breaking news flashes and weekly jobs board: sign up now

Related stories

Swift taps Sword Fircosoft tech for sanctions screening service

Swift taps Sword Fircosoft tech for sanctions screening service

04 May 2011  |  8226 views  |  0 comments
Swift plans sanctions screening outsourcing service for small banks

Swift plans sanctions screening outsourcing service for small banks

27 October 2010  |  15531 views  |  1 comments
RBS hit with £5.6m fine for sanctions screening failings

RBS hit with £5.6m fine for sanctions screening failings

03 August 2010  |  18375 views  |  1 comments
Swift MT202 COV increasing workload and costs - Dow Jones survey

Swift MT202 COV increasing workload and costs - Dow Jones survey

22 April 2010  |  9855 views  |  0 comments
Credit Suisse expects to pay $536m to settle US sanctions probe

Credit Suisse expects to pay $536m to settle US sanctions probe

16 December 2009  |  6015 views  |  0 comments
Lloyds TSB pays $350 million to settle cover payments charges

Lloyds TSB pays $350 million to settle cover payments charges

12 January 2009  |  9751 views  |  0 comments

Related company news

 

Related blogs

Create a blog about this story (membership required)
http://www.financialcrimerisk.fiserv.com/aml?r=finextraFind out moreVisit contisgroup.com

Top topics

Most viewed Most shared
China tops world fintech rankingsChina tops world fintech rankings
8373 views comments | 39 tweets | 31 linkedin
EBA bends under weight of PSD2 mandatesEBA bends under weight of PSD2 mandates
7951 views comments | 36 tweets | 47 linkedin
Guesswork alone can crack Visa card security - Newcastle UniversityGuesswork alone can crack Visa card securi...
7949 views 12 comments | 15 tweets | 27 linkedin
PSD2 will transform the payments landscapePSD2 will transform the payments landscape
6826 views comments | 23 tweets | 13 linkedin
Fed Governor sounds warning on alternative credit scoring dataFed Governor sounds warning on alternative...
6767 views comments | 20 tweets | 23 linkedin

Featured job

Find your next job