1
Annex
What are the benefits of artificial intelligence in monitoring suspicious activities?
In recent years there has been an increasing trend towards adoption of artificial
intelligence to help prevent and detect financial crime. Machine learning is one of the
most common forms of artificial intelligence which some Authorized Institutions (AIs),
taking into account the size and complexity of their businesses, have used to optimise
the effectiveness and efficiency of anti-money laundering (AML) systems. These AIs
have found that effective transaction monitoring requires finding the right balance
between technology and human expertise to optimise processes. This note illustrates
some of the benefits AIs can expect to see from using artificial intelligence, and should
be read together with other guidance provided by the HKMA1
, which details how some
of the challenges inherent to implementing artificial intelligence for AML can be
overcome.
- Wider data coverage (Effectiveness)
• In rules-based transaction monitoring (TM) systems, alert generation is mainly
based on customers’ existing transaction activities within certain prescribed
periods (e.g. daily/ weekly/ monthly) without taking into account historical
transaction activities outside these periods or other related contextual data
from the subject customer.
• In contrast, the higher computing capabilities/ processing power in artificial
intelligence-empowered monitoring systems enables the collation and analysis
of vast amounts of data from various sources, which can greatly enhance AIs’
detection capabilities for suspicious activity.
• Artificial intelligence has the capability to generate a much larger network of
interrelated rules for different segments of an AI’s customer portfolio. This
can facilitate deeper insight, a more comprehensive and accurate assessment
of a customer’s ML/TF risk profile, and hence achieve a more effective
outcome, providing the ability to identify suspicious patterns that may be
difficult to spot in high volumes of data.
• Sources of data covered by artificial intelligence-empowered monitoring
systems usually include:
- AI’s own data - data regarding the customer profile (e.g. obtained at onboarding), transactions, previous alerts and results of any review or
analysis, and where suspicious transaction reports (STRs) have been
made within the AI’s own system.
1 HKMA Circulars “Report on AML/CFT Regtech: Case Studies and Insights Volume 1” issued on 21
January 2021, “Report on AML/CFT Regtech: Case Studies and Insights Volume 2” issued on 25
September 2023, and “Thematic Review of Transaction Monitoring Systems and Use of Artificial
Intelligence” issued on 17 April 2024.
.
2
- External data - intelligence from financial institutions within the same
banking group, law enforcement agencies, information sharing
platforms (e.g. the FMLIT or FINEST 2 platforms) or watchlist
information.
- Enhanced detection capability (Effectiveness)
• Artificial intelligence-empowered monitoring systems are able to identify new
typologies and detect complex networks of suspicious customers and their
activities more effectively.
• The system also generates less noise and enables AIsto target higher-risk cases
for investigation, freeing up resources of the AML function to focus on
genuine high-risk cases. AIs which have adopted artificial intelligenceempowered monitoring systems have been able to achieve a higher STR
conversion rate without compromising system effectiveness.
- More timely follow-up action (Efficiency)
• Many AIs which have deployed artificial intelligence have cited addressing
the overwhelming volume of false positive alerts, a long-standing industry
pain point, as the primary driver. These alerts are not truly suspicious but must
be cleared out of the queue, wasting valuable time and effort.
• The preliminary assessment results generated from an artificial intelligenceempowered monitoring system replace the different levels of initial
assessment manually conducted by staff, thereby reducing overheads and,
where implemented effectively with adequate testing and retraining of the
model, significantly streamlining operations for alert handling and
investigation.
• Artificial intelligence-empowered monitoring systems facilitate
differentiation and prioritisation of cases of higher probability of financial
crime for investigation and STR filing. Investigation of alerts generated from
a purely rules-based TM system are consolidated into a holistic review on a
customer-relationship basis, which can be conducted by a single investigator.
This can shorten the overall time required for investigation, enabling the AI to
mitigate the ML/TF risk sooner.
- Improved sustainability (Effectiveness and Efficiency)
• Compared to rules-based TM systems which adopt static rules and parameters
and require constant manual intervention for adjustment to cover the latest red
2 FMLIT stands for Fraud and Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce and FINEST stands for
Financial Intelligence Evaluation Sharing Tool.
3
flags and typologies, an artificial intelligence-empowered monitoring system
has embedded machine learning capabilities and can be trained on
comprehensive data, customers’ transaction activities and other parameters to
detect more complex typologies and emerging risks.
• Manual rule-tuning to capture these emerging risks can be challenging,
because codifying the new typology into quantifiable behaviours and then
setting appropriate thresholds and segments takestime. Retraining an artificial
intelligence empowered model can be much faster as there is no requirement
to go through the whole cycle manually.
• New typologies and hidden patterns can then be identified through the AI’s
assessment of a customer’s transactional activities. These new typologies,
together with those shared by law enforcement agencies and through public
private partnerships and intelligence from previous STRs, are fed into the
model with a view to identifying similar patterns in the future, thereby
enhancing detection capabilities in a more sustainable way.