MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015247420

Strategies for Banks Anti-Money Laundering/Counter-Terrorism Finance Compliance Programs to Protect Financial Systems

2022· article· en· W7015247420 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks (Walden University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoney launderingCompliance (psychology)TerrorismFinancial transactionVulnerability (computing)SecrecyThematic analysisData breachInternal control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ineffective implementation of anti-money laundering (AML) compliance programs exposes the vulnerability of banks’ and increases the threats of money laundering and terrorist financing. The banking community must address the threat of money laundering and terrorism finance to protect the global financial system from abuse. Grounded in the fraud management lifecycle theory, the purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore strategies to reduce threats of money laundering and terrorist financing. Data were collected from semistructured interviews, a review of bank policy documents, and previous Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) cases. The participants comprised six BSA/AML compliance officers at banks in the United States and Canada with experience implementing successful AML compliance programs. Thematic data analysis revealed three themes: effective internal and external communications, enhanced human/technological collaboration, and consistent internal compliance training. A key recommendation is to incorporate external communications with law enforcement. Potential, positive social changes include better educated bank compliance personnel, improved transactional monitoring, and enhanced employee training to reduce illicit and fraudulent financial activity which could result in weakened cartel operations, increased tax revenues, and more prosperous and safer communities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks (Walden University)Same topicCrime, Illicit Activities, and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207