由原文自动翻译 · 阅读原文 (English)
大家好，我对合规方面还比较陌生，正努力更深入地理解AML。我们正在运行一个相当标准的交易监控系统，我发现自己一直在争论警报阈值应该设置在哪里。我理解“风险信号”和异常活动的概念，但这常常感觉很主观。例如，客户进行一系列略低于我们报告阈值的存款，或者频繁向高风险司法管辖区进行国际转账。从纸面上看，这些都是警报，但你们如何真正区分需要深入调查（并可能提交SAR）的真正可疑模式，与仅仅是客户具有真正复杂但合法的金融活动所产生的噪音警报？感觉在彻底审查和被误报淹没之间有一条细线。在实践中，你们如何在不遗漏真正风险的情况下实现这种平衡？
It's definitely tricky. For deposits, are you looking at frequency, value, or both? And how does that compare to the client's expected activity or historical patterns?
It's definitely a tricky balance, especially when you're trying to avoid false positives without missing actual risks. Are you mainly dealing with retail clients, or do you have a mix of institutional accounts as well? That can really change how you approach those thresholds.
Traderforum · 简体中文