What’s inside: audit trail · monitoring
The question this file answersHow many of the alerts my MLRO opens each week were never going to end in a report?
Fits: banks, payment firms and fintechs where compliance files are still assembled by hand.
Typical pattern, not a measured desk; the finance playbook calls suspicious-activity investigation human work and gives no alert volume. Alerts, repeat false positives and true suspicion share one queue; the MLRO's hours go on opening, not deciding. It hurts when a genuine pattern has sat under noise all week.
When the MLRO sits down, the queue holds the cases worth a decision, each with history and transactions already laid out, and the noise closed with a logged reason the regulator can read. Filing remains a name on a form — the MLRO's.
Typical, not a measured client result. Every figure here comes from the playbook source named below.
the same assembly build as KYC onboarding — no published figure for monitoring alerts
Before: the MLRO's time goes to opening files, not deciding. After: known noise closes with a logged reason and suspicion arrives assembled. No percentage — the KYC figure is about onboarding.
McKinsey KYC study (2023) is about onboarding case time; transaction monitoring is a different desk, so the 50–70% remains with the KYC file; this desk shows none. We will not write a detection rate.
Your monitoring and core systems stay — Temenos, FIS, Finastra and your transaction-monitoring tool, or the ones you run. This is the same evidence-assembly build as our KYC onboarding, pointed at monitoring:
No model writes or files a suspicious activity report.
The suspicious activity report. The customer. The regulator. No model files.
We will not write a detection rate.
Automatic closure of any alert is a regulatory question before it is a technical one — the closure rules and the log format must be signed off by compliance, and until they are, nothing closes without a person. If your monitoring tool exports alerts only as reports or screens, assembly runs on exports and is slower.
The path: free 60-second estimate → free 20-minute review → paid audit of this one process (€1.5–3K, typically two weeks) → pilot with your people in the loop (€10–20K, weeks, not quarters). No transformation programme. Prices are public, on the services page →
Scoped in the audit — the playbook has no estimate for this exact desk.
That depends on your volumes and wage costs — this page will not invent the number. The free 60-second estimate runs that calculation from your answers, with every multiplier sourced.
Not a named Aperanda client. Process file · Finance.
Short process file. Same build as its parent file; the playbook has no separate volume or benchmark for this desk.