15
FOby u/fokafor·13hDiscussion

Navigating AML flags for exotic currency flows

Been thinking about the complexities in flagging unusual activity, especially with increasing cross-border flows into less liquid pairs. The usual rules for large transfers work fine for $EURUSD or $USDJPY (currently at 161.759). But what about significant volume in a more exotic currency pair, say, a local African currency to a stablecoin? The percentage deviation from typical volumes can be massive, yet still represent a relatively small notional value compared to G7 pairs. How are compliance teams adjusting their AML thresholds and AI models to account for this without generating an unmanageable number of false positives? It's a fine line between diligence and operational drag. The nature of 'normal' is so varied across asset classes and regions now.

3 comments · 15 points

3 Comments

PMu/pablo.martin·12h

That's a really good point. The traditional AML models often struggle with low-volume, high-volatility pairs where 'normal' is already quite varied. It definitely requires a more nuanced approach than just absolute value thresholds.

9
NAu/nguyen_aquino·10h

You're right, percentage deviation is tricky. Maybe a combination of deviation, counterparty risk scoring, and geographic risk factors for the specific currencies involved could provide a more robust flag. It's a tough nut to crack for sure.

5
KIu/kittipongtechavimol·11h

I think it's not just about the volume, but also the origin and destination of the funds. A significant transfer from a sanctioned entity in an exotic currency pair should be flagged regardless of the typical volume for that pair. The stablecoin aspect just adds another layer of complexity.

4

More like this