Table 1: Managing the risks posed by high-risk customers
FI: Binance Holding 1
Regulatory authority: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Office of Foreign Assets Control and IRS-Criminal Investigation
Penalty: $ 4.3 billion Key AML reasons:
Failure to establish, implement and maintain an effective AML program
Lack of robust internal controls for risk-based due diligence and user and transaction-level screening
FI: City National Bank. U. S. 2
Regulatory authority: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Penalty: $ 65 million Key AML reasons:
Failure to implement effective risk management and internal controls associated with money laundering / terrorist financing risks
Inadequate customer due diligence program and customer risk profile assessment
FI: Klarna Bank AB 3 Regulatory authority: Finansinspektionen, Sweden Penalty: SEK 500 million Key AML reasons:
Inadequate risk assessment to identify potential use of Klarna’ s products for aiding money laundering / terrorist financing activities
Deficiencies in implementing a robust AML program including EDD procedures
FI: Starling Bank Plc, U. K. 4
Regulatory Authority: Financial Conduct Authority, U. K.
Penalty: GBP 28.96 million Key AML reasons:
Insufficient and inconsistent EDD on high-risk customers
Inadequate risk assessment controls to identify high-risk customers
Graphic 1: Risk management cycle
Risk( s) identification
Continuous monitoring and reporting of performance of control( s)
Assessing the impact of risk( s) on attainment of goal( s)/ objective( s)
Enhance existing OR develop new risk mitigation control( s)
Assessing existing risk mitigation control( s)
Source and visualization by: Gauri Bapat
ACAMS Today | September – November 2025 61