Benchmarking and Trends in Financial Crime Compliance Screening

FIs face growing fines for failings in their compliance processes, while the technology to support screening systems continues to evolve rapidly. Against this background, FIs must approach financial crime compliance screening with a clear strategy informed by the state of regulation and technology. In light of this, this report explores the current state of financial crime compliance screening and the market for screening solutions.

The survey

This report presents the findings of a joint global survey on the financial crime compliance screening technology market conducted in Spring 2019 by Chartis Research and Accuity. Of 131 total respondents, 109 (83%) were from financial services firms. Of these:

• 44% were headquartered in Europe¹.
• 18% were headquartered in North America.
• 14% were headquartered in the Asia-Pacific region.
• 24% were headquartered in the Rest of the World.

In addition:

• 27% of FI respondents were from Tier 1 organizations.
• 21% were from Tier 2 organizations.
• 52% were from Tier 3 organizations.

For more detail on the region and tier specifications see Appendix B.

The report

After this introduction, our report is divided into four sections. 

• The first explores and assesses the key trends in financial crime compliance screening highlighted by our survey². We examine FIs’ current approaches to financial crime compliance screening, considering a shift in emphasis from screening speed toward screening accuracy, and the growing popularity of ‘component-based’ technology strategies. We also consider what these and other trends mean for the future of FIs’ financial crime compliance screening approaches. 
• The second section (Appendix A) provides quantitative survey results addressing key elements of the financial crime compliance screening process, such as:
  • The volumes of accounts and transactions screened.
  • The numbers of full-time employees dedicated to screening activity by different respondents.
  • The volume of positively flagged entities our respondents are reporting.

Readers can use these results to benchmark themselves against the screening processes of peer institutions.

• The third section (Appendix B) provides key benchmark figures by tier and region.
• The fourth section (Appendix C) provides definitions of our regional and institution-size survey categories. 

_{1 For definitions of the categories used in the survey, see Appendix C.}

_{2 Note that rounding factors mean that some charts may not add to exactly 100%.}

• Tweet  
• Facebook  
• LinkedIn  
• Save this article
• Send to  
• Print this page  

• Topics
• Technology