4 ms·
I work on software banks use to look for fraud or money laundering. Fraud always made sense, since there was a feedback loop with the end customer to confirm t
by addled 10y ago
I work on software banks use to look for fraud or money laundering. Fraud always made sense, since there was a feedback loop with the end customer to confirm transactions were legit or not. We could adjust our algorithms from there.
I don't think the same exists for BSA. The main incentive for banks is to avoid fines for not reporting suspicious activity and the Fed doesn't let the bank (or us) know whether the suspicious activity submitted turned out to be legal or not. I would love to reduce the number of false positives from our system, but have no way to build a proper training set. Sounds like the IRS doesn't know what it should really be targeting either.
- arafa 10y agoThere is sort of a feedback loop based on the reports you do file, whether the Fed ends up accepting or complaining about them, and also (sadly) news reports. It works OK. Monitoring structuring mostly works fine at larger banks. The problem here is that the IRS doesn't have the same network of analysts and other quality control measures. At a bank, someone can take their money elsewhere and be held liable. The IRS has a smaller budget and much less incentives (very hard to switch governments) and so there's a failure.