Customer classification plays a pivotal role in the AML strategies of businesses, especially within banking, finance, and gaming sectors.
According to Alessa, customer-type ratings categorize individuals and entities by risk potential, considering their business nature, financial history, and relationship duration with the financial institution. For instance, an individual with stable employment and regular transactions is deemed low risk, while a new enterprise in a high-value sector might attract a higher risk score.
Geographic risk is critical in AML evaluations, focusing on a customer’s residential or business location, or the origin and destination of their transactions. This aspect assesses the political, economic, and AML regulatory environment of involved regions.
A customer residing in a country known for stringent AML regulations poses a lower risk than one from areas prone to corruption or conflict.
This factor scrutinizes the volume and frequency of transactions, identifying those that deviate from expected norms. Large or frequent transactions, especially those inconsistent with a customer’s typical activity, are red flags. For example, a small business suddenly conducting numerous high-value transactions might require enhanced scrutiny.
Certain industries are inherently riskier in terms of AML concerns, such as those dealing in cash or high-value goods. Businesses like jewelry stores, given their high-value transactions, are subjected to stricter AML controls compared to sectors with lower transaction values like grocery stores.
The length of a customer’s relationship with a financial institution significantly affects their risk rating. Established clients with a long and transparent transaction history are generally considered safer than new clients who have not yet established a transaction pattern.
Negative media or being listed on sanctions watchlists can drastically alter a client’s risk assessment. Entities linked to financial irregularities or those on embargoed lists are subject to rigorous AML scrutiny.
Individuals holding significant political offices, or those closely related to them, are classified under Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and are considered high-risk for corruption and bribery, necessitating stringent oversight.
The presence of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) or past regulatory actions against a client increases their risk profile, signaling potential involvement in illicit activities.
Engaging in transactions with countries under embargoes or identified as high-risk can escalate a client’s risk score, demanding enhanced due diligence.
Sudden deviations in transaction patterns, such as unexpected large transfers from dormant accounts, are critical in identifying potential money laundering activities.
Combining these risk factors allows businesses to tailor their AML programs effectively, enhancing their ability to thwart financial crimes and maintain system integrity. Continuous adaptation of AML strategies to evolving risks is vital for protecting against financial crime.
Keep up with all the latest FinTech news here
Copyright © 2024 FinTech Global
