COMPLIANCE MEET THE ACAMS STAFF
Reviewers bring deep regulatory and technical exper tise, but their ability to deliver meaningful outcomes depends entirely on the scope and integrity of the information shared
The hallmarks of a high-value review
An effective independent review should yield objective, actionable insights. Its purpose is not merely to verify compliance with regulatory minimums but to equip leadership with credible assessments that support decision-making around:
▪ Program effectiveness
▪ Resource allocation
▪ Strategic and product risk alignment
▪ Response to regulatory expectations
Independent reviews conducted with full transparency become strategic assets. They surface systemic issues before regulators do, provide early visibility into control gaps and support prudent adjustments to institutional risk appetite. The foundation of this value is clear ― reviewers must be given a complete, unfiltered view of the institution’ s risk profile.
The disclosure imperative: Equipping reviewers with the full picture
Reviewers bring deep regulatory and technical expertise, but their ability to deliver meaningful outcomes depends entirely on the scope and integrity of the information shared. Institutions should treat disclosure as both a governance imperative and a regulatory obligation. Providing incomplete or misleading information ― whether by omission or misrepresentation ― can undermine board oversight, erode regulatory trust and potentially expose the institution and individuals to legal or supervisory consequences. Below are the primary categories of information that must be disclosed to support a robust and credible review.
1. Regulatory posture and internal findings
▪ Formal and informal regulatory matters: Disclose enforcement actions, matters requiring attention, memorandums of understanding or open examination issues.
▪ Litigation and legal exposure: Highlight any pending or material disputes with compliance or control implications.
▪ Internal testing and audit results: Provide unresolved findings, recurring deficiencies and areas under remediation.
2. Organizational change and governance
▪ Leadership transitions: Note changes to compliance leadership, key internal subject-matter experts and external advisors, or structural shifts in reporting lines.
▪ Training gaps: Report lags in mandatory training, especially in onboarding or high-risk operations.
3. Risk environment and operations
▪ Product launches or pilots: Disclose offerings in development, testing or market release ― particularly those involving new payment technologies, delivery channels or customer interfaces that may introduce novel risks.
▪ Customer base evolution and geographic expansion: Identify shifts toward new or higherrisk geographies, business types, customer segments or transaction patterns that could change the institution’ s inherent risk profile.
▪ Licensing and regulatory changes: Share the status of any pending or approved license applications, renewals or jurisdictional modifications that may affect the institution’ s regulatory obligations.
▪ Material third-party or affiliate involvement: Identify any group entities, affiliates or critical third parties that provide essential IT infrastructure, software or compliance services supporting the institution’ s products or services. Clarify which parties have access to or control over funds, information flows or compliance processes, and explain how accountability for regulatory compliance is maintained.
4. Third-party and fintech exposure
▪ Banking as a service and embedded finance arrangements: Describe third-party structures touching know your customer, monitoring, sanctions screening or customer access.
▪ Vendor transitions or outages: Disclose changes in technology platforms or compliance service providers.
▪ Control of ownership or key interests: Highlight changes in control or ownership exceeding 10 % with governance or licensing implications.
66 acamstoday. org