January 31, 2026

Contributor attribution
This article was contributed by Dr. Abdallah C. Ficani, Ph.D., ACPA, is Assistant Professor and Head of the Audit & Accounting Department at Université Antonine (UA), Head of the Finance Department at the Lebanese University (UL), and Chairman of Stronghold Capital Management Limited (DIFC – DFSA Category 3C licensed). He specializes in auditing, governance, compliance, and financial risk management, with extensive academic and professional contributions in Lebanon, the Gulf, and internationally. His research and practice focus on bridging governance frameworks with emerging challenges in financial crime prevention. It is published by The American Anti-Corruption Institute (AACI) under editorial oversight for educational and informational purposes.

Abstract

This paper examines the tight coupling between anti‑money laundering (AML) systems and corporate governance, arguing that money laundering represents not only a financial offense but a failure of ethical oversight. Although AML statutes are now widespread, enforcement repeatedly exposes weaknesses in internal controls, board supervision, and whistleblower protection. Through selected cases—including HSBC and Danske Bank, as well as regulatory assessments—the paper shows how profit‑first strategies, thin compliance architectures, and political interference create fertile ground for laundering. It then assesses the promise of artificial intelligence, big‑data analytics, and blockchain in AML, while noting the new governance challenges they raise around explainability, accountability, and fairness (Shirvanporzour, 2025; Khan, 2024). The paper concludes that sustainable AML performance depends less on procedural checklists than on governance grounded in ethical leadership, transparency, and responsibility (IMF, 2023).

Keywords: Anti-Money Laundering (AML) – Corporate Governance – Financial Crime – Ethical Leadership- Compliance Frameworks – Whistleblowing- Risk-Based Approach (RBA)

1. Introduction

Money laundering undermines financial stability and institutional legitimacy by masking the origins of illicit funds and enabling wider criminal activity. While traditional AML frameworks emphasize Know Your Customer (KYC), Customer Due Diligence (CDD), suspicious activity reporting, and record‑keeping, high‑profile episodes show that these controls falter when governance and culture fail. The Danske Bank scandal and HSBC’s 2012 settlements illustrate how weak oversight and profit incentives can overwhelm compliance priorities (Bjerregaard & Kirchmaier, 2019; U.S. Department of Justice, 2012; HSBC Holdings plc, 2012). Empirical and policy reviews also suggest that effectiveness remains mixed, with sizable gaps between formal compliance and real‑world outcomes (IMF, 2023; Pol, 2020).

2. AML as a Governance Concern

AML is frequently treated as a technical or regulatory obligation. In practice, it is a test of governance quality. Compliance ensures that rules exist; governance determines whether they are internalized, operationalized, and valued. Organizations that embed AML into risk appetite, incentives, and oversight are more resilient than those that view it as box‑ticking.

International norms reflect this governance turn. The FATF Recommendations and risk‑based guidance require senior leadership to set the tone, resource compliance, and ensure accountability (FATF, 2025). Supervisory guidance likewise stresses board‑level oversight and reporting lines for AML/CTF (AUSTRAC, n.d.; IMF, 2023).

Boards and executives are pivotal: they must balance profitability with integrity, challenge management assumptions, and ensure independent reporting to the board. Evidence from Danske Bank shows the consequences when warnings are ignored and controls are sidelined (Bjerregaard & Kirchmaier, 2019; Minto & Rasmussen, 2022). Research also links governance strength to lower misconduct and income‑shifting risks (Eulaiwi, 2024; Mousavi et al., 2022).

3. Institutional Risks and Weak Internal Controls

A risk‑based approach (RBA) is central to modern AML, but it only works when governance converts risk assessments into action. Common breakdowns include ineffective beneficial‑ownership checks, fragmented or outdated monitoring systems, under‑resourced compliance teams, and audits that lack AML expertise (FATF, 2025; IMF, 2023).

The Three Lines of Defense model—business ownership, compliance/risk, and internal audit—often fails in tandem during major scandals, revealing cultural and governance deficits rather than isolated technical errors (Ringgaard, Bukh & Sandalgaard, 2025). Conflicts of interest and revenue pressure can mute compliance, as seen in enforcement records from HSBC (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012).

4. Whistleblowing and Ethical Culture

Whistleblowers frequently surface misconduct that control systems miss. Yet retaliation risks, cultural stigma, and weak channels suppress reporting. Stronger legal protections and independent reporting mechanisms are vital to move from symbolic to effective whistleblowing (Boles, 2025; Kagias, 2024; Understanding Whistleblowing in Practice, 2023).

Evidence indicates that ethical climate, leadership behavior, and trust matter as much as incentives in encouraging disclosures (Lambert & Gabuthy, n.d.; Snitches Get Stitches and End Up in Ditches, n.d.). Governance responsibilities therefore include board‑level oversight of whistleblower systems, anonymized reporting to the board, and periodic independent reviews.

5. AML Enforcement Realities

Despite widespread formal alignment with international standards, many jurisdictions show weak outcomes. Network‑level analyses and policy reviews continue to find gaps between obligations and effective interdiction, investigation, and recovery (Gerbrands et al., 2022; IMF, 2023; Nazzari, 2025; Pol, 2020).

In the HSBC case, U.S. authorities documented significant AML and sanctions failures culminating in the 2012 settlements (U.S. Department of Justice, 2012; HSBC Holdings plc, 2012). Danske Bank’s Estonian branch processed vast non‑resident flows, with governance failures documented by case research and legal analysis (Bjerregaard & Kirchmaier, 2019; Minto & Rasmussen, 2022).

Cross‑border arbitrage, opaque beneficial ownership, and uneven cooperation compound the challenge, illustrating that political will and supervisory independence are decisive for credible enforcement (IMF, 2023; FATF, 2025).

6. Board Oversight Failures and Accountability

Many AML failures originate in the boardroom. Effective oversight requires AML literacy, independent risk and compliance committees, and unmediated reporting lines from compliance to the board (AUSTRAC, n.d.; IMF, 2023).

Assigning clear individual responsibility can strengthen deterrence. Proposals to adapt director liability frameworks reflect this shift toward personal accountability for AML/CTF failures (Adapting director liability to modern AML/CTF compliance, 2024). Related governance lessons from the Wells Fargo case underscore how passive boards and distorted incentives can enable systemic misconduct (Wells Fargo: Corporate governance issues and board failure, n.d.).

7. Future Trends: AI, Big Data, and Technology in AML Governance

AI and machine learning promise to uncover complex patterns and reduce false positives, but raise concerns about explainability, fairness, and accountability (Shirvanporzour, 2025; Khan, 2024; Trifiletti, 2025).

Big‑data integration across internal and external sources can enhance risk profiling and real‑time monitoring, while also raising data‑protection and bias issues (Jiao, 2023; Jiang, 2024). Transaction‑monitoring practice continues to evolve with analytics and automation (Oztas, 2024; Pavlidis, 2023).

RegTech and SupTech offer scalable compliance and supervisory tooling, but governance must ensure transparency, auditability, and human‑in‑the‑loop controls (IMF, 2023).

8. Policy and Practical Recommendations

·       Board reform: mandatory AML education, independent compliance committees, and calibrated director liability (AUSTRAC, n.d.; Adapting director liability to modern AML/CTF compliance, 2024).

·       Empowered compliance: direct board access, adequate resourcing, and independent audits that test AML effectiveness (IMF, 2023).

·       Whistleblower protection: enforce anti‑retaliation, implement independent channels, and audit outcomes (Boles, 2025; Kagias, 2024).

·       Cross‑border cooperation: converge beneficial‑ownership transparency and streamline investigative cooperation (FATF, 2025; Gerbrands et al., 2022).

·       Responsible technology: require explainable AI, robust cybersecurity, and bias controls; maintain human oversight (Shirvanporzour, 2025; Khan, 2024; Jiang, 2024).

·       Capacity building: invest in supervisory independence and sector capability, especially in developing contexts (IMF, 2023).

·       Ethical culture: align incentives with integrity and conduct periodic culture reviews (Pol, 2020; Ringgaard, Bukh & Sandalgaard, 2025).

9. Conclusion

Money laundering persists where governance falters. Case evidence and empirical research show that rules alone are insufficient without board engagement, independent compliance, and a culture that prizes integrity. Technology can be transformative, but only when embedded in transparent, accountable governance. By treating AML as a core governance mandate—rather than a procedural burden—institutions can turn compliance into a strategic capability (IMF, 2023; FATF, 2025).

References

Adapting director liability to modern AML/CTF compliance (2024) Journal of Financial Crime. doi:10.1080/10345329.2024.2441081

AUSTRAC (n.d.) Board and senior management oversight in AML/CTF programs. AUSTRAC Regulatory Guidance.

Bertrand, A. (2021) ‘Do AI-based anti-money laundering (AML) systems violate fundamental rights?’, International Data Privacy Law. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipab024

Bjerregaard, E. and Kirchmaier, T. (2019) The Danske Bank Money Laundering Scandal: A Case Study. Copenhagen Business School. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3446636

Boles, J.R. (2025) ‘Protecting the protectors: Whistleblowing and retaliation in the compliance arena’, Australian Business Law Review.

Çemberci, M. (2022) ‘The effect of institutionalization level on the relationship between corporate governance and perceptions of AML effectiveness’.

Connell, P.L. (2022) Strategies for Banks’ Anti-Money Laundering / Counter Financing of Terrorism Programs. Doctoral dissertation.

Eulaiwi, B. (2024) ‘Money laundering governance and income shifting’, Journal of Corporate Finance, 85, pp.102–120. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2024.102120

FATF (2025) FATF Recommendations. Paris: Financial Action Task Force. Accessed 2025.

FATF (2025) Guidance — Risk-Based Approach (Banking Sector). Paris: Financial Action Task Force.

Gerbrands, P., Unger, B., Getzner, M. and Ferwerda, J. (2022) ‘The effect of anti-money laundering policies: an empirical network analysis’, EPJ Data Science, 11, 15. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00328-8

HSBC Holdings plc (2012) HSBC announces settlements with authorities.

IMF (2023) Review of The Fund’s Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism Framework. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

Jiang, H. (2024) ‘Application Technologies and Challenges of Big Data Analytics in Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Fraud Detection’, Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 14, pp.3226–3236. doi:10.4236/ojapps.2024.1411213

Jiao, M. (2023) ‘Big Data Analytics for Anti-Money Laundering Compliance in the Banking Industry’, HSET, 49, Article 8522. doi:10.54097/hset.v49i.8522

Kagias, P. (2024) ‘Whistleblowing Based on the Three Lines Model’, Governance (MDPI), 14(5), Article 83.

Khan, H.U. (2024) ‘Identifying the AI-based solutions proposed for restricting financial crime’, Journal of Financial Crime. doi:10.1080/08839514.2024.2344415

Lambert, E.-A. and Gabuthy, Y. (n.d.) ‘Promoting internal whistleblowing in organizations’, IZA Journal.

Minto, A. and Rasmussen, N.S. (2022) ‘Approaching the Danske Bank scandal in a “Tragedy of the Commons” perspective: Implications for AML institutional design’, European Company and Financial Law Review, 19(2), pp.305–338. doi:10.1515/ecfr-2022-0010

Money Laundering and Central Bank Governance in the European Union (n.d.) Journal of International Economic Law.

Mousavi, M. et al. (2022) ‘The effect of corporate governance structure on fraud and money laundering’, Risks, 10(9), 176. doi:10.3390/risks10090176

Nazzari, M. (2025) ‘How Well Does the Money Laundering Control System Work?’, Journal of Public Policy (Chicago). doi:10.1086/735665

Oztas, B. (2024) ‘Transaction Monitoring in Anti-Money Laundering’, Elsevier / ScienceDirect.

Pavlidis, G. (2023) ‘The dark side of anti-money laundering: Mitigating unintended consequences’, Journal of Financial Regulation & Compliance. [ScienceDirect].

Pol, R.F. (2020) ‘Anti-money laundering: The world’s least effective policy’, Global Policy. doi:10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366

Ringgaard, A., Bukh, P.N. and Sandalgaard, N. (2025) ‘Operating the boundary system: A case study of Anti-Money Laundering risk management in a bank’, Journal of Management Accounting Research. doi:10.1007/s00187-025-00392-x

Shirvanporzour, A. (2025) ‘Artificial Intelligence in Banking Risk Management and Anti-Money Laundering: A Comprehensive Review’, SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5161209

Snitches Get Stitches and End Up in Ditches: A Systematic Review of the Factors Affecting Whistleblowing (n.d.) PMC.

Trifiletti, M. (2025) ‘The Challenge of Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Anti-Money Laundering’. doi:10.5281/zenodo.

U.S. Department of Justice (2012) Statement of Facts in HSBC case. Washington, DC.

Understanding Whistleblowing in Practice: Experiences & Challenges (2023) Journal of Business Ethics. Tandfonline.

Wells Fargo: Corporate governance issues and board failure (n.d.) SAGE Journals. doi:10.1177/2277977918803476

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the official position of The American Anti-Corruption Institute (AACI). External references are provided for educational purposes only. Any assessments of individuals or entities remain outside AACI’s opinion and rest solely with the competent authorities.