Is it necessary to infantilize compliance officers?

Is it necessary to infantilize compliance officers?

Compliance

Should we continue to train compliance officers by mentioning unreachable goals, by inflating the importance of their actions and erecting them as the ultimate line of defense which will protect the society against criminals and terrorists?

Or should we be more pragmatic and told them that only 0.2 % of the proceeds of crime are seized, that most of their actions will disturb and inconvenience the work of legitimate business owners and that their job description is above all to protect their financial institution?

Are the compliance officers kids to be motivated or adults to be respected for the efficiency of their actions?

With 99% of criminal proceeds being injected without being noticed in the financial institutions, maybe the training should be focused on criminal activities, on criminal personalities and on the right, provocatively the obligation, to go FAST to the next potential case.

The current tick-in-the box system isn’t working as it should, compliance officers are losing their energy by over-working on cases that they should close FAST if any wrong doing isn’t detected.

With the obligation to protect their employers, by adding multiples layers of useless information as their employers should demonstrate the efficiency of their AML organization, everything is getting SLOW, everything but the criminals.

To compensate for the routine of a very administrative job description the training sessions are going over the top in describing the importance of the work, infantilizing the compliance officers.

We need to show more respect:

  1. To the compliance officers, by allowing them to go faster to the next suspicion
  2. To legitimate business owners, by stopping the inconveniences    
  3. To the public, by changing the system and so increasing the efficiency
Raphael

Comments are closed.