TENAs government regulations increase and work�ow and technology challenges grow, the need for timely and accurate compliance data is vital. That’s why Dow Jones Risk & Compliance teamed up

with the Association of Certi�ed Anti-Money Laundering Specialists to survey 1,100 Anti-Money Laundering professionals and gain an unprecedented inside look at the current state of AML affairs. Take a look at the survey’s �ndings and benchmark your experiences against those of your peers.

Roadblocks to Anti-Money Laundering Success

The Most Common Challenges to Compliance

What’s Driving Workload?

Additional Sources of Workload Increase

The regulations and recommendations putting pressure on AML departments

of organizations have revamped their clienton-boarding processes or plan to do so dueto new FATCA requirements70%

Compliance teams are becoming an increasinglyimportant asset within their organizations due to:

Increasing Di�culties Means Increasing Workload

The Big Sweep

AML Departments Feel the Pain

Fighting False Positives

Cleansing Client Data

Aiming for Accuracy

Company growth:

55%37%37%

Rising regulatoryexpectations:

New or expanded government regulations:

49%

32%

60%44%

13 minutes

78%

87%

62%

77%of compliance professionals are struggling under the pressure of a growing workload

of AML departments expect to see an increase in workload by 2015

of those familiar with client screening have lost con�dence in the accuracy of data after experiencing too many false positives

Sensitive Subjects: Screening For Domestic PoliticallyExposed Persons (PEPs)

Average amount of screening alerts that are false positives

of these regularly assess their technology, either quarterly or annually

of companies claim 75%+ of alerts are false positives

Average time required to clear a false positive:

Why organizations review their screening solutions:

of survey respondents screen domestic PEPs

3/4

Companies must ensure their client data and technology solutions are e�ective, e�cient, and up-to-date

The PEP screening process generates a large numberof false positives

e�ective e�cient up-to-date

The primary motivation of review andchange is accurate screening

of companies have a clientscreening technology solution in place

28%

47%

40%

40%

34%

Too many false positive alerts:

Too many false negative alerts:

Cost issues:

Enterprise technologyconsolidation:

Compliance professionals must increase their focus on the quality of client data

of compliance professionalshave cleansed their customers’

data within the past six months

71%of AML departments areinvolved in data cleansing

conduct continuous audits

67%

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act:

59%

72%Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act:

Insuf�cient staf�ngin AML departments 40%

Insuf�ciently trainedAML staff 49%

Insuf�cient or outdatedtechnology 38%

Increased regulatoryexpectations 62%

10

1010

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING

Exiting Business Segments Due to Regulatory Risk

FinCEN Impact on Maintaining High-Risk Accounts

Growing realmsof responsibility

29%

Brought to you by Risk & Compliance

70%30%

79%

of AML departments already handle fraud detection & prevention

Identify and understand individuals with ultimate ownership or control of an asset.

56%

77%

74%

83%

Types of Data Relevant for Managing Fraud

Crime typologies

News

Risk data

Fraud Detection And Prevention: The Next Big Thing

Lowering the Threshold on Bene�cial Ownership

82%

69%verify through processesof internal due diligence

Less than 30% of

companies verify beneficial

ownership to a level of 10%

of companies verifybeneficial ownership as part of theKnow Your Customer (KYC) process

How Companies VerifyBene�cial Ownership 29% verify using a country

company registry

18%

of companies verify throughoutsourced processes of due diligence

29%

Plans to exit business line/segment in the next 12 months

30% are planning or investigating the possibility of exiting

Multiple responses allowed

24%

70%

10%

Investigating possibility of exiting

Not planning or investigating exit

Planning to exit

Due only to preceivedregulatory risk:

Due to inability tomanage the risk:

Have exited business line/segment in past 12 months

35% have exited for one of both reasons

Yes

Yes

No

No

MSB or high-risk account closures have reducedorganization’s willingness to maintain accounts:

70%38%

Yes No

21%