In the world of anti-money laundering (AML), outdated practices are exposing institutions to risk. Many banks still process alerts in the order they were received—an approach that values queue-clearing efficiency over risk severity.
According to Consilient, as regulatory scrutiny tightens, the old model no longer holds up. Clearing low-risk alerts first simply because they came in earlier means that dangerous activity may go uninvestigated for weeks or even months.
This creates significant tension for compliance leaders, who are accountable for prioritising cases based on risk. Yet in most systems, visibility into the backlog is limited. Without a way to score alerts according to actual exposure, teams struggle to justify which cases are escalated first. The result is rising error rates, slower resolution, and increased pressure from auditors.
The solution lies in adopting a ranked case review model that prioritises alerts based on transaction-level risk rather than when they were raised. This method evaluates historical alerts and ranks them using severity scores derived from real financial crime patterns, giving investigators a risk-first triage approach and a clear audit trail to justify decisions.
Traditional workflows typically favour SLA targets, measuring how quickly alerts are reviewed without regard for their importance. Chronological queues can give the illusion of progress while masking true exposure. Regulators, however, care about whether suspicious activity reports (SARs) are filed in time—within 30 days of identifying red flags. Delays caused by outdated workflows leave compliance teams vulnerable.
Risk scoring transforms this. Rather than overhauling existing systems, a scoring layer works alongside them. Alerts are triaged by signal strength and anomaly severity. The riskiest cases, even if newer, are moved to the top. This ensures that effort aligns with exposure and auditability is built into the system.
The model offers clear benefits: structured backlogs, faster escalation of high-risk alerts, minimal disruption to existing processes, and full explainability for every decision. Each score is transparent, providing the logic needed to defend decisions internally and to regulators. Investigators can see which features contributed to a score, and leadership can rely on consistent, evidence-backed triage.
Looking further, institutions can enhance risk identification by deploying machine learning models that score alerts at the point of generation. These models help accelerate the routing of high-risk alerts directly to specialist teams, eliminating delays and manual triage bottlenecks.
Even stronger outcomes are achieved through Federated Learning—a technique that allows banks to train models on broader financial crime patterns from multiple institutions, without sharing sensitive data. This collaboration enriches model accuracy, capturing typologies and threats that internal systems alone might miss.
Explainability is critical. When a high-risk case sits untouched for weeks, “we followed the queue” isn’t good enough. Regulators want proof that case prioritisation was based on objective, defensible criteria. A ranked scoring model provides this with a repeatable process, helping compliance teams align investigations with real exposure.
In practice, the process is simple: historical alerts are ingested, scored using peer-trained logic, ranked by severity, and documented for traceability. Outcomes feed back into the model, continually improving prioritisation. No alert is removed—only reordered—ensuring full transparency.
Manual prioritisation, often undocumented and inconsistent, is no longer acceptable. A scoring model brings structure, traceability, and control. Compliance teams remain in charge of governance while benefiting from enhanced decision-making and stronger audit readiness.
The case for change is urgent. Alert volumes continue to rise, teams remain stretched, and current models can’t keep up with evolving risks. Without prioritisation, institutions risk falling behind and losing the trust of regulators.
By adopting a ranked, risk-first review system, firms can shift from passive clearance to active triage—strengthening their AML programmes and ensuring high-risk alerts get the attention they deserve.
Copyright © 2025 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst
