Structuring AML Investigations & Reporting

Table of Contents

1. Structuring AML Investigations & Reporting
2. Why Standardize Investigations & Reporting?
3. Key Benefits
4. Implementation Guide
5. Investigation & Reporting Coverage
6. Example Scenarios
7. Common Pitfalls & Tips
8. Expanding the Impact
9. Conclusion

1. Structuring AML Investigations & Reporting

Establishing consistent investigative procedures is vital for accurately detecting and documenting financial crimes. Yet many institutions struggle with ad-hoc methods, incomplete suspicious activity narratives, and missed red flags during investigations. By leveraging a well-defined knowledge base of Tactics, Techniques, Indicators, and recommended Mitigations, organizations can adopt a structured approach to investigations and ensure more reliable reporting outcomes.

2. Why Standardize Investigations & Reporting?

• Uniformity in Investigative Steps: A consistent framework helps investigators follow the same process, reducing confusion and errors.
• Clearer SAR/STR Narratives: Aligning case findings to recognized Tactics or Techniques clarifies the rationale behind each report.
• Proactive Guidance on Next Steps: When investigators link suspicious activity to known adversarial patterns, they can see which Indicators or Mitigations to explore next.
• Regulatory Alignment: Audits and inquiries become simpler when every stage of the investigation references a shared knowledge structure.

3. Key Benefits

1. Enhanced Investigative Consistency
   Standard checklists ensure no critical Indicators are missed. Teams rely on the same references for suspicious patterns and recommended actions.

2. Improved Quality of SAR/STR
   Investigators reference recognized Techniques in their narratives, providing a clearer story for regulators and reducing incomplete or vague reports.

3. Adaptive Case Handling
   As an investigation progresses, the knowledge base suggests potential next steps: additional red flags to check, Actors to consider, or Mitigations to apply.

4. Reduced Compliance Risk
   Uniform procedures aligned to recognized adversarial behaviors limit oversights and strengthen regulatory confidence.

4. Implementation Guide

4.1. Develop Standardized Investigative Checklists

• Reference Tactics & Techniques
  E.g., "Look for evidence of layering (ML.TA0007) or funnel accounts (T0083)."
• Include Relevant Indicators
  Each step asks whether any known red flags (e.g., IND####) are present, ensuring no suspicious behavior is overlooked.
• Highlight Data Sources & Actors
  Remind investigators to consult the correct logs or watchlists, especially if known money mules or specific services are involved.

4.2. Adopt a Unified Reporting Template

• Map Behaviors to Techniques
  Provide sections in your template for naming the detected Technique(s) and relevant Indicators.
• Guided Narrative
  Prompt investigators with structured questions ("Which technique or value instrument was used?") so they produce more comprehensive SAR/STR narratives.
• Mitigation & Next Steps
  Encourage investigators to list recommended or applied Mitigations (e.g., M###) and suggest additional avenues of inquiry if something suspicious arises during the investigation.

4.3. Provide Proactive Investigative Guidance

• Suggest Follow-Up Checks
  When a certain Tactic or Technique is identified, your knowledge base can display known associated Indicators or Actors. Example: discovering funnel accounts might prompt investigators to check for rapid, small-amount transfers among many recipients (IND####).
• Tie in Risk Factors
  If the flagged activity involves a high-risk channel or jurisdiction, instruct teams to escalate to Enhanced Due Diligence or additional risk scoring.

4.4. Embed Procedures into Case Management

• Link to Knowledge Base
  Investigators can click or reference relevant codes in the case management system, then see recommended next steps or typical red flags.
• Document Everything
  Each investigative action ("checked beneficial ownership records"; "reviewed communications logs") references the relevant technique or indicator that prompted the step.

4.5. Train & Update Regularly

• Continuous Training
  Provide short refresher sessions on new or revised Tactics, Techniques, and Indicators.
• Review & Feedback
  After complex cases, gather lessons learned—did any recommended next steps prove especially helpful or was something missed?
• Incorporate New Behaviors
  If the knowledge base receives updates on emerging laundering methods, incorporate them promptly into investigative checklists.

5. Investigation & Reporting Coverage

A robust knowledge base aids investigations by covering:

• Tactics & Techniques: The "why" and "how" criminals launder funds.
• Indicators: Key red flags prompting deeper review.
• Value Instruments: Clarifying if suspicious funds involve prepaid cards, cash, crypto, etc.
• Actors & Services: Identifying high-risk entities or products (e.g., money mules, trade finance) that investigators should scrutinize.
• Mitigations: Outlining recommended responses or defenses—like multi-factor approvals or additional risk scoring.

When your investigative framework references these points, you ensure each suspicion is thoroughly explored, from the suspicious trigger to the final mitigative action.

6. Example Scenarios

Scenario 1: Anomalous Wire Transfers

An investigator sees multiple wires under reporting thresholds, scattered across branches. By following the standardized checklist, they recognize relevant Indicators (IND####: repeated micro-deposits), confirm the Technique (“structuring”), and decide which Mitigations apply (e.g., MM0002: Enhanced Due Diligence). The SAR clearly describes these adversarial patterns, boosting clarity.

Scenario 2: Incomplete SAR Narratives

A compliance officer notices that SARs from one department consistently lack justification for labeling transactions "layering." After adopting the standardized approach, each narrative cross-references the knowledge base for layering sub-techniques, ensuring consistent, data-backed explanations.

7. Common Pitfalls & Tips

8. Expanding the Impact

• Training New Analysts: Provide role-play scenarios mapped to Tactics, Techniques and Indicators for consistent learning.
• Cross-Institution Collaboration: If multiple FIs reference the same Tactics, Techniques and Indicators, it becomes easier to share cases or intelligence.
• Refining Detection & Risk: Upstream detection rules can be improved based on real investigative feedback—closing the loop between alert generation, investigation, and risk assessment.

9. Conclusion

A structured approach to investigations and reporting ensures no red flag is missed, no suspicious method goes undocumented, and final SAR/STR narratives are both coherent and actionable. By aligning each investigative step to recognized Tactics, Techniques, and relevant Indicators—and offering prompt guidance for next steps—organizations uphold higher investigative standards, meet regulatory expectations more readily, and foster a more agile, intelligence-driven AML/CFT posture.

Back to Top