Learn from the decisions behind financial crime cases.
Understand what happened. Examine the evidence. Decide what you would do next.
15 case files · Official sources · Short decision exercises · Free to explore
15 cases
When monitoring gaps become a governance problem
A monitoring programme needs more than alerts. This case examines ownership, resourcing and the route from a concern to an accountable decision.
Can a clean audit sample hide a control gap?
A review is only as useful as its scope. Examine how excluded customers and untested transaction types can undermine assurance.
A supplier address does not establish material origin
Follow a supply chain beyond the immediate supplier. Decide what a name-screening result can—and cannot—tell you.
The invoice does not explain the source of the gold
Test the commercial story behind a precious-metals shipment. Learn why identifying the immediate seller may leave the true source unexplained.
The familiar sender and the fraudulent payment
A genuine mailbox can carry a fraudulent instruction. Examine the difference between recognising a sender and verifying payment authority.
When the customer profile stops explaining the account
A customer’s business label should explain the activity you observe. A mismatch needs investigation, not a convenient category change.
What evidence supports your correspondent assurance?
A correspondent questionnaire is a representation about actual controls. Group policy cannot substitute for evidence that the relevant branch follows it.
A working deposit machine can still miss a reporting duty
A payment product can work for customers while its reporting controls fail. Launch checks should cover the journey from transaction capture to submission.
Does the payment carry the information others need?
Information travelling with a payment supports risk decisions elsewhere in the chain. Successful settlement does not prove that the right data accompanied it.
An explanation of wealth needs supporting evidence
Source of wealth concerns how total wealth was accumulated. Source of funds concerns the origin of particular funds. A statement addressing one may leave the other unresolved.
Who is authorised to give the instruction?
An intermediary who knows the family or account is not automatically authorised to instruct it. Verify the mandate independently of commercial influence.
A smaller queue is not proof of timely reporting
A case can have several relevant timestamps: alert creation, suspicion formation, approval and submission. Track them separately so a closure metric does not erase an overdue obligation.
Investigate the account—and the recruitment story
Ask how the account holder became involved, who supplied instructions and who controlled access. A claimed job offer may be relevant evidence rather than a complete explanation.
When cash is recorded as a cheque
A correct amount with the wrong transaction type can change monitoring outcomes. Test whether data fields retain their business meaning across systems.
A screening engine can run against the wrong population
An engine can run on schedule without covering all intended records. Check list ingestion, category selection and customer scope before relying on alert volumes.
No cases match. Try another search or choose All cases.
More than a case summary
Read the documented facts
See the historical outcome, source links and limits of the evidence.
Work through a new situation
Apply the lesson to a clearly labelled fictional scenario, then compare your reasoning.
Build the underlying skill
Each case points to a relevant free LearnAML course.
Build the skill behind the case
Continue with six free courses and practical labs. A learner account saves your course progress.
Read and practise without an account. For structured lessons and saved course progress, explore our free courses. Optional case reflections are saved on this device only.