We specialize in compliance consultancy, due diligence, and audit services to help businesses meet regulatory standards with confidence. Our experienced team provides tailored solutions to identify and manage risks, ensuring you operate responsibly and securely in today’s complex landscape. We are committed to integrity, excellence, and empowering our clients with the insights they need for sustainable growth.
A regulator rarely asks whether you have AML policies and procedures. They ask whether your programme actually works – in files, in decisions, and under pressure. That is why an aml policies and procedures review should feel less like a document tidy-up and more like a stress test of how your firm takes on risk, monitors it, and evidences what it did.
For compliance officers, MLROs, and operational leaders, the real value of a review is clarity: which controls are defensible, which are drifting away from practice, and where governance is too thin to withstand a thematic review or an onsite inspection. The trade-off is that a meaningful review can be uncomfortable. It surfaces inconsistency, legacy workarounds, and cases where “we’ve always done it this way” has become the control.
What an AML policies and procedures review should prove
At its best, a review demonstrates alignment between three things: your documented framework, your risk profile, and what staff actually do day to day. If one of these is out of line, you end up with predictable failure modes – good paperwork but weak onboarding decisions, strong analysts but unclear escalation routes, or a solid monitoring tool with poorly defined alert governance.
Regulators and auditors are typically looking for evidence that your programme is risk-based and that your firm can explain its choices. This includes how you set risk appetite, how your Business Risk Assessment (BRA) drives your controls, and how you apply Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) proportionately. “Proportionate” is doing a lot of work here: too little creates exposure, too much creates operational drag and poor customer experience, which often leads to shortcuts.
A review should also prove that your programme is maintained, not merely written. Version control, training linkage, change management and regular testing matter because they show that compliance is treated as an operating system, not a binder.
Where AML programmes typically fail in practice
Most gaps are not exotic. They tend to be practical disconnects between intent and execution.
One common issue is that the BRA exists but does not drive decisions. If inherent risks (delivery channels, geographies, products, customer types) are assessed, yet the resulting control enhancements never materialise in onboarding rules, monitoring scenarios, or resourcing, the BRA becomes a compliance artefact.
Another is inconsistent CDD thresholds. Firms may define risk ratings, but analysts interpret them differently, or relationship teams push for approvals without a consistent escalation and sign-off approach. That inconsistency is exactly what file reviews and regulator sampling will expose.
Third, policies often overpromise. It is tempting to write comprehensive statements about ongoing monitoring, periodic reviews, adverse media screening, and transaction monitoring governance. If your tools, data, and headcount cannot deliver those promises, you have created a self-incrimination risk: your own policy becomes the benchmark you fail against.
Finally, there is frequently a governance gap. Committees exist in name, minutes are sparse, management information (MI) is not decision-grade, and ownership of controls is unclear across first and second line functions. When an incident occurs, it is difficult to evidence who knew what and when.
Scoping a review: start with your real risk profile
A credible review starts by agreeing what “good” looks like for your business model, not a generic template. A payment firm with high transaction volumes has different stress points to a corporate service provider onboarding complex structures, and both differ again from gaming operators where speed, friction, and behaviour monitoring are central.
Scoping should therefore begin with a candid view of your risk exposure and operational reality. That normally includes (a) mapping products and services, (b) identifying customer and geographic concentrations, (c) understanding distribution and delivery channels, and (d) reviewing incident history, audit findings, and regulator communications. Change is a key scoping input too – new markets, new onboarding partners, new tools, or a surge in certain client types.
From there, the review should prioritise the controls that carry the most regulatory and reputational consequence. That is risk-based compliance in practice: you are not treating every section of a policy as equal, because your risks are not equal.
The core components to test – and what “good” looks like
A strong review will examine policy content and procedural execution together. You are looking for internal consistency, traceability, and evidence.
Governance, roles, and accountability
The basics are often written down but poorly operationalised. “Good” means that responsibilities across the first line, compliance, and the MLRO function are unambiguous; escalation routes are realistic; and committees have clear terms of reference. It also means that ownership of key controls (CDD sign-off, sanctions screening management, monitoring rule changes, SAR decisioning) is assigned and evidenced.
A practical test here is to take one high-risk onboarding case and follow it end to end: who approved what, what was checked, what was recorded, and what would happen if an adverse development occurred two months later.
Risk assessment methodology (BRA and customer risk)
Methodology matters. “Good” BRA work explains scoring logic, data sources, weighting, and review cadence. It should connect to your control framework: if risk increases, what changes? That might mean tightening EDD triggers, increasing review frequency, enhancing monitoring rules, or adding senior sign-off for certain relationships.
Customer risk scoring should be consistent with your documented appetite and supported by guidance that reduces subjectivity. Where judgement is necessary, the policy should specify what evidence is required and where to document rationale.
CDD and EDD procedures that are actually usable
CDD procedures fail when they are either vague or unrealistic. “Good” means clear minimum requirements, clear EDD triggers, and a defined approach to complex ownership structures, trusts, and nominees.
The procedure should also address common operational friction points: what to do when documents cannot be obtained, when onboarding is urgent, when information conflicts, or when a client refuses transparency. Without that guidance, staff invent workarounds and your audit trail weakens.
Screening and ongoing monitoring
Screening is not only about having a tool. “Good” means clarity on what is screened (customers, beneficial owners, directors, signatories, connected parties), at what points (onboarding, periodic review, ongoing), and how potential matches are dispositioned. It also means governance over list updates, tuning, quality checks, and false positive management.
Ongoing monitoring should be proportionate to your business model. If you operate a high-volume environment, you need documented alert governance: thresholds, scenario ownership, review SLAs, quality assurance, and clear steps for escalation to the MLRO. If your risks are more relationship-based, periodic reviews and event-driven triggers (change of ownership, new geography, adverse media) may carry more weight.
Reporting, SAR decisions, and record keeping
Policies often describe reporting obligations but not decision logic. “Good” includes clear internal reporting channels, what constitutes suspicion in your context, and how the MLRO function documents rationale for SAR submissions or decisions not to submit.
Record keeping is similarly practical. It should define what is retained, for how long, where it is stored, and how you ensure retrieval under audit. If evidence exists but cannot be produced quickly and coherently, it may as well not exist.
Training, competence, and embedding
Training is frequently treated as a completion metric. “Good” training is role-specific, mapped to your procedures, refreshed when risk or regulation changes, and supported by competence checks for higher-risk roles. The review should test whether staff can explain the process and apply it to a real scenario, not whether they clicked through a module.
Turning findings into changes that reduce exposure
The output of an aml policies and procedures review should be actionable, prioritised, and built for implementation. That means findings are tied to risk, not just “non-compliance with policy section 4.2”. Senior leaders need to understand consequence: what could happen, how likely it is, and what the business should do next.
Good remediation planning separates quick wins from structural work. Quick wins might include clarifying EDD triggers, fixing templates, tightening approval matrices, or improving MI definitions. Structural work might include redesigning risk scoring, changing onboarding workflow, improving monitoring governance, or adjusting resourcing.
There is also a genuine trade-off to manage: tightening controls may increase onboarding friction and slow growth. The answer is not to avoid change, but to be deliberate. If you are going to introduce higher scrutiny in certain segments, you should also streamline low-risk onboarding so the programme remains operationally sustainable.
How often should you review, and what should trigger an early refresh?
Annual reviews are a sensible baseline for many regulated firms, but frequency depends on change velocity and inherent risk. If your model shifts quickly – new products, new jurisdictions, material increases in high-risk clients, or reliance on third parties – waiting a year can be too slow.
Early refresh triggers often include regulatory updates, new typologies relevant to your sector, major audit findings, a serious incident, or a tooling change (new screening provider, new transaction monitoring ruleset, new onboarding platform). A smaller targeted review can be appropriate when the change is localised, provided you can evidence why scope was limited.
Getting external assurance without losing control of the programme
Some firms keep reviews fully internal, others seek independent assurance to strengthen credibility with boards, auditors, and regulators. External input is most valuable when it challenges assumptions, tests files and workflows, and translates regulatory expectations into practical control improvements.
The key is to ensure the review is not a generic benchmark exercise. Your procedures should fit your business model and risk appetite, and recommendations should be implementable with your actual systems and operating constraints. If you want a partner that takes that approach and focuses on defensible, practical change, Complipal can support AML policy and control reviews as part of an ongoing compliance maturity programme: https://complipal.com.
A well-run review leaves you with something more useful than updated documents. It leaves you with decisions you can defend, controls your teams can operate, and a programme that makes it easier to say “no” to the wrong risk – even when the commercial pressure is loud.
AML policy reviews that stand up to scrutiny
A regulator rarely asks whether you have AML policies and procedures. They ask whether your programme actually works – in files, in decisions, and under pressure. That is why an aml policies and procedures review should feel less like a document tidy-up and more like a stress test of how your firm takes on risk, monitors it, and evidences what it did.
For compliance officers, MLROs, and operational leaders, the real value of a review is clarity: which controls are defensible, which are drifting away from practice, and where governance is too thin to withstand a thematic review or an onsite inspection. The trade-off is that a meaningful review can be uncomfortable. It surfaces inconsistency, legacy workarounds, and cases where “we’ve always done it this way” has become the control.
What an AML policies and procedures review should prove
At its best, a review demonstrates alignment between three things: your documented framework, your risk profile, and what staff actually do day to day. If one of these is out of line, you end up with predictable failure modes – good paperwork but weak onboarding decisions, strong analysts but unclear escalation routes, or a solid monitoring tool with poorly defined alert governance.
Regulators and auditors are typically looking for evidence that your programme is risk-based and that your firm can explain its choices. This includes how you set risk appetite, how your Business Risk Assessment (BRA) drives your controls, and how you apply Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) proportionately. “Proportionate” is doing a lot of work here: too little creates exposure, too much creates operational drag and poor customer experience, which often leads to shortcuts.
A review should also prove that your programme is maintained, not merely written. Version control, training linkage, change management and regular testing matter because they show that compliance is treated as an operating system, not a binder.
Where AML programmes typically fail in practice
Most gaps are not exotic. They tend to be practical disconnects between intent and execution.
One common issue is that the BRA exists but does not drive decisions. If inherent risks (delivery channels, geographies, products, customer types) are assessed, yet the resulting control enhancements never materialise in onboarding rules, monitoring scenarios, or resourcing, the BRA becomes a compliance artefact.
Another is inconsistent CDD thresholds. Firms may define risk ratings, but analysts interpret them differently, or relationship teams push for approvals without a consistent escalation and sign-off approach. That inconsistency is exactly what file reviews and regulator sampling will expose.
Third, policies often overpromise. It is tempting to write comprehensive statements about ongoing monitoring, periodic reviews, adverse media screening, and transaction monitoring governance. If your tools, data, and headcount cannot deliver those promises, you have created a self-incrimination risk: your own policy becomes the benchmark you fail against.
Finally, there is frequently a governance gap. Committees exist in name, minutes are sparse, management information (MI) is not decision-grade, and ownership of controls is unclear across first and second line functions. When an incident occurs, it is difficult to evidence who knew what and when.
Scoping a review: start with your real risk profile
A credible review starts by agreeing what “good” looks like for your business model, not a generic template. A payment firm with high transaction volumes has different stress points to a corporate service provider onboarding complex structures, and both differ again from gaming operators where speed, friction, and behaviour monitoring are central.
Scoping should therefore begin with a candid view of your risk exposure and operational reality. That normally includes (a) mapping products and services, (b) identifying customer and geographic concentrations, (c) understanding distribution and delivery channels, and (d) reviewing incident history, audit findings, and regulator communications. Change is a key scoping input too – new markets, new onboarding partners, new tools, or a surge in certain client types.
From there, the review should prioritise the controls that carry the most regulatory and reputational consequence. That is risk-based compliance in practice: you are not treating every section of a policy as equal, because your risks are not equal.
The core components to test – and what “good” looks like
A strong review will examine policy content and procedural execution together. You are looking for internal consistency, traceability, and evidence.
Governance, roles, and accountability
The basics are often written down but poorly operationalised. “Good” means that responsibilities across the first line, compliance, and the MLRO function are unambiguous; escalation routes are realistic; and committees have clear terms of reference. It also means that ownership of key controls (CDD sign-off, sanctions screening management, monitoring rule changes, SAR decisioning) is assigned and evidenced.
A practical test here is to take one high-risk onboarding case and follow it end to end: who approved what, what was checked, what was recorded, and what would happen if an adverse development occurred two months later.
Risk assessment methodology (BRA and customer risk)
Methodology matters. “Good” BRA work explains scoring logic, data sources, weighting, and review cadence. It should connect to your control framework: if risk increases, what changes? That might mean tightening EDD triggers, increasing review frequency, enhancing monitoring rules, or adding senior sign-off for certain relationships.
Customer risk scoring should be consistent with your documented appetite and supported by guidance that reduces subjectivity. Where judgement is necessary, the policy should specify what evidence is required and where to document rationale.
CDD and EDD procedures that are actually usable
CDD procedures fail when they are either vague or unrealistic. “Good” means clear minimum requirements, clear EDD triggers, and a defined approach to complex ownership structures, trusts, and nominees.
The procedure should also address common operational friction points: what to do when documents cannot be obtained, when onboarding is urgent, when information conflicts, or when a client refuses transparency. Without that guidance, staff invent workarounds and your audit trail weakens.
Screening and ongoing monitoring
Screening is not only about having a tool. “Good” means clarity on what is screened (customers, beneficial owners, directors, signatories, connected parties), at what points (onboarding, periodic review, ongoing), and how potential matches are dispositioned. It also means governance over list updates, tuning, quality checks, and false positive management.
Ongoing monitoring should be proportionate to your business model. If you operate a high-volume environment, you need documented alert governance: thresholds, scenario ownership, review SLAs, quality assurance, and clear steps for escalation to the MLRO. If your risks are more relationship-based, periodic reviews and event-driven triggers (change of ownership, new geography, adverse media) may carry more weight.
Reporting, SAR decisions, and record keeping
Policies often describe reporting obligations but not decision logic. “Good” includes clear internal reporting channels, what constitutes suspicion in your context, and how the MLRO function documents rationale for SAR submissions or decisions not to submit.
Record keeping is similarly practical. It should define what is retained, for how long, where it is stored, and how you ensure retrieval under audit. If evidence exists but cannot be produced quickly and coherently, it may as well not exist.
Training, competence, and embedding
Training is frequently treated as a completion metric. “Good” training is role-specific, mapped to your procedures, refreshed when risk or regulation changes, and supported by competence checks for higher-risk roles. The review should test whether staff can explain the process and apply it to a real scenario, not whether they clicked through a module.
Turning findings into changes that reduce exposure
The output of an aml policies and procedures review should be actionable, prioritised, and built for implementation. That means findings are tied to risk, not just “non-compliance with policy section 4.2”. Senior leaders need to understand consequence: what could happen, how likely it is, and what the business should do next.
Good remediation planning separates quick wins from structural work. Quick wins might include clarifying EDD triggers, fixing templates, tightening approval matrices, or improving MI definitions. Structural work might include redesigning risk scoring, changing onboarding workflow, improving monitoring governance, or adjusting resourcing.
There is also a genuine trade-off to manage: tightening controls may increase onboarding friction and slow growth. The answer is not to avoid change, but to be deliberate. If you are going to introduce higher scrutiny in certain segments, you should also streamline low-risk onboarding so the programme remains operationally sustainable.
How often should you review, and what should trigger an early refresh?
Annual reviews are a sensible baseline for many regulated firms, but frequency depends on change velocity and inherent risk. If your model shifts quickly – new products, new jurisdictions, material increases in high-risk clients, or reliance on third parties – waiting a year can be too slow.
Early refresh triggers often include regulatory updates, new typologies relevant to your sector, major audit findings, a serious incident, or a tooling change (new screening provider, new transaction monitoring ruleset, new onboarding platform). A smaller targeted review can be appropriate when the change is localised, provided you can evidence why scope was limited.
Getting external assurance without losing control of the programme
Some firms keep reviews fully internal, others seek independent assurance to strengthen credibility with boards, auditors, and regulators. External input is most valuable when it challenges assumptions, tests files and workflows, and translates regulatory expectations into practical control improvements.
The key is to ensure the review is not a generic benchmark exercise. Your procedures should fit your business model and risk appetite, and recommendations should be implementable with your actual systems and operating constraints. If you want a partner that takes that approach and focuses on defensible, practical change, Complipal can support AML policy and control reviews as part of an ongoing compliance maturity programme: https://complipal.com.
A well-run review leaves you with something more useful than updated documents. It leaves you with decisions you can defend, controls your teams can operate, and a programme that makes it easier to say “no” to the wrong risk – even when the commercial pressure is loud.
Recent Post
AML policy reviews that stand up to
February 15, 2026AML audit remediation plan that holds up
February 14, 2026AML Audit Prep: What Regulators Look For
February 13, 2026Categories