Structured review of an AML program against FATF / FFIEC expectations — the 5 pillars, common findings, regulatory citations with primary sources. Used by `aml-kyc-analyst` (primary).
Scanned 9/23/2026
npx -y skills add mcorbett51090/RavenClaude --skill aml-program-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Aml Program Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mcorbett51090-aml-program-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: aml-program-review
description: Structured review of an AML program against FATF / FFIEC expectations — the 5 pillars, common findings, regulatory citations with primary sources. Used by `aml-kyc-analyst` (primary).
---
# Skill: aml-program-review
**Purpose:** Structured review of an AML program against FATF / FFIEC expectations. Used by `aml-kyc-analyst` (primary).
## When to use
- Pre-exam AML program review
- Annual independent review (mandated under most regimes)
- Post-incident program assessment
- New-licence applicant readiness check
- Acquired-entity integration
## The 5 pillars (US BSA / FFIEC framework; equivalent concepts in most regimes)
Most regulators expect an AML program with these components:
1. **Designated AML Officer** with appropriate authority, resources, board access
2. **Internal policies, procedures, and controls** for CDD, EDD, transaction monitoring, sanctions, reporting
3. **Ongoing training** for relevant employees, with records
4. **Independent testing** at appropriate frequency, with documented findings + remediation
5. **CDD / beneficial-ownership** identification + ongoing risk-based monitoring
(Bermuda's AMLR 2008 captures equivalent concepts with different structure; map them on review.)
## Review structure
For each pillar, assess:
- **Design** — does the documented program meet the regulator's expectations?
- **Implementation** — does what's done in practice match what's documented?
- **Effectiveness** — does the implementation actually catch what it's supposed to catch?
A program can be well-designed but poorly implemented, or implemented as designed but ineffective at catching what it should. Differentiate.
## Common findings (in order of frequency in mid-market firms)
### Design findings
- BOI verification weak (relies on customer's own statement for higher-risk corporate customers)
- EDD triggers documented but actual EDD content is the same as CDD with more pages
- Sanctions screening covers customers but not connected parties / counterparties
- Negative-news screening has no documented procedure
- Transaction monitoring rule set never validated; thresholds at vendor defaults
- AML training is generic; doesn't reflect the firm's actual product / customer base
### Implementation findings
- KYC files have gaps (missing BOI, expired ID, no risk rating recorded)
- Sanctions hits cleared with no documented rationale
- Alert backlogs (TM alerts unworked beyond regulator-expected SLAs)
- SAR / STR filings sparse; no continuing-activity reports
- Periodic refresh skipped on higher-risk customers
- AML Officer not actually independent (also runs operations)
### Effectiveness findings
- Independent-testing reports never trigger material remediation
- Training records exist but knowledge doesn't (interviews fail)
- Board / committee minutes show no substantive AML discussion
- Risk assessment static for years; new products / customers / geographies not reflected
## Report structure
For each pillar, produce:
| Pillar | Design (✅ / ⚠️ / 🔴) | Implementation (✅ / ⚠️ / 🔴) | Effectiveness (✅ / ⚠️ / 🔴) | Findings | Severity (P0 / P1 / P2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Plus:
- **Top 3 remediations** prioritized
- **Regulator-exposure score** (e.g., "BMA exam unlikely to clear without addressing finding #1")
- **Recommendation** (e.g., refresh program, targeted remediation, comprehensive rebuild)
## Severity guide
- **P0** — program fails a regulator's published expectation; remediate before next exam window.
- **P1** — program meets expectations on paper, fails in practice; remediate before next refresh.
- **P2** — improvable; not a current gap.
## Anti-patterns the review catches
- Program designed by the vendor template, customized only by find-and-replace
- "Independent" testing done by the team being tested
- AML Officer with no actual authority to escalate to the board
- Training records that don't tie to the people actually doing AML work
- "We follow industry best practice" used as substantive policy text
## See also
- Skill: [`../sar-narrative-drafting/SKILL.md`](../sar-narrative-drafting/SKILL.md)
- Template: [`../../templates/aml-program-outline.md`](../../templates/aml-program-outline.md)
- Template: [`../../templates/kyc-edd-workpaper.md`](../../templates/kyc-edd-workpaper.md)
- Agent: [`../../agents/aml-kyc-analyst.md`](../../agents/aml-kyc-analyst.md)
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!