Enter a keyword to filter the case library and related mapping cards.
Study documented international typologies, Bangladesh regulatory publications and practical control-testing scenarios. Each entry identifies its source, separates reported facts from analysis, and links the lessons to relevant RegTech Nexus AI tools.
Evidence first. Analysis clearly labelled. Human judgement remains essential.
Use this mapping to connect a documented case to the relevant risk, control, evidence, testing and remediation steps—then open the existing RegTech Nexus AI tool that supports each part of the exercise. Mapping supports professional judgement; it does not certify compliance or determine wrongdoing.
Working rule: DISCOVER → INSPECT → VERIFY → TEST → CHALLENGE → ASSESS → RISK-RATE → REMEDIATE → RETEST → ASSURE.
Risk → Control: unexplained trade-price variance → documented comparable benchmark and transaction-document reconciliation.
Evidence & test: benchmark source, product comparability, unit-price calculation, invoice/contract/shipping/payment reconciliation and escalation rationale.
Open TradeGuard ↗ · Percentage Calculator learning tools ↗
Variance is a risk indicator, not proof of TBML. Neither tool supplies or certifies a market benchmark.
Source → Control: verify the applicable BFIU instruction and exact clause → map it to an approved policy, control owner and evidence requirement.
Evidence & test: policy approval, transaction sample, training/monitoring evidence, exception, risk rating, remediation owner and retest.
Open Policy Gap Analyzer ↗ · Open ICMS Toolkit ↗
Confirm current applicability and amendments. A tool-generated mapping is not proof of effective implementation.
Risk → Control: missed, unexplained or poorly handled alerts → governed monitoring scenarios, reproducible testing and documented human review.
Evidence & test: expected/actual alert, scenario version, investigation trail, escalation, reporting decision, closure rationale and retest.
Open ICMS Toolkit ↗ · Explainable AI controls ↗ · Policy Gap Analyzer ↗
Use synthetic or authorised data in a controlled environment. This scenario is hypothetical.
The entries below identify the source facts, then separate analytical lessons and proposed tests. They are educational case studies—not findings about any named bank or customer. Open the original document to confirm context before relying on it.
Primary source: FATF, Trade-Based Money Laundering (2006), Case Study 12, printed report page 7.
Documented facts: The report describes a Brazilian company engaged in illegal activities. Proceeds were moved through cash couriers and offshore accounts; offshore shell companies then bought concentrated syrup from the Brazilian company at highly inflated prices and resold it at a significant loss. FATF describes the scheme as a way for criminal proceeds to return to the Brazilian company through apparently legitimate trade.
Risk analysis: The trade payment alone may appear commercially plausible. The risk emerges when price, counterparty relationships, source of funds, shipping evidence and onward resale are assessed together.
Potential red flags to test:
Control-testing procedure: Select a risk-based sample of trade-finance transactions; reconcile invoice, contract, customs/shipping evidence and payment; document price-benchmark source and variance; review beneficial ownership and counterparties; inspect alert rationale, escalation and disposition. Do not treat any single red flag as proof of crime.
RegTech mapping: TradeGuard for structured trade-document review; ICMS Toolkit for control ownership and evidence; Explainable AI for explainable alerts and human review.
Try it yourself: Write down (1) the exact price comparison basis, (2) what makes the benchmark comparable, (3) what evidence is missing, and (4) what would trigger escalation. Do not upload confidential customer or bank data.
Open original FATF report (PDF) ↗ · FATF publication page ↗
Evidence status: Source facts verified from the FATF report summary. Local legal applicability and current control requirements must be separately verified.
Open TradeGuard: trade-price and document review ↗
Use TradeGuard to structure the review; it is not a live commodity-price feed and does not certify a price as fair. For a simple percentage-variance practice calculation, open the Student Knowledge Hub and select Percentage Calculator under Free Student Tools. Calculate only after choosing a defensible comparable benchmark; the calculator cannot supply the benchmark or determine whether a transaction is suspicious.
Practice output: benchmark source, comparability adjustments, unit-price variance, supporting documents, unresolved questions and escalation rationale.
Primary sources: BFIU Circular No. 24, dated 10 December 2019, Guidelines for Prevention of Trade Based Money Laundering; BFIU Annual Report 2019–20, printed page 19; BFIU Circular Letter No. 01/2021, dated 7 March 2021, extending the implementation deadline.
Documented facts: BFIU issued the TBML guidelines for scheduled banks. The 2019–20 annual report states that banks had reported few suspicious TBML transactions and identifies limited awareness, guidance and implementation framework as contributing issues. The 2021 circular letter extended the implementation timeline; it is historical evidence of a deadline extension, not proof of the present compliance status of any bank.
Analysis: Issuing a guideline does not by itself demonstrate that a bank implemented it. Auditability depends on approved procedures, ownership, staff capability, transaction-level evidence and testing of actual operation.
Control-testing procedure:
RegTech mapping: Policy Gap Analyzer ↗ for policy-to-control mapping; ICMS Toolkit ↗ for evidence and remediation tracking; TradeGuard ↗ for transaction-level review.
Try it yourself: Create one control record with fields for source clause, control objective, sample selected, evidence inspected, exception, risk rating, action owner and retest result. Use only non-sensitive or synthetic text.
BFIU Circular No. 24 (PDF) ↗ · BFIU Annual Report 2019–20 (PDF) ↗ · BFIU Circular Letter No. 01/2021 (PDF) ↗
Evidence status: The historical statements above are attributed to BFIU's cited publications. This is not a claim that all banks currently have these gaps, nor a legal opinion on current requirements.
Open Policy Gap Analyzer ↗ Open ICMS Toolkit ↗
Use Policy Gap Analyzer to map verified source clauses to control objectives and evidence requirements. Use ICMS Toolkit to organise control owner, test sample, evidence inspected, exception, risk rating, remediation deadline and retest result. Do not treat an automated mapping as proof that a control is effective.
Calculator relevance: No standalone regulatory calculator is needed for this policy-implementation assessment. Do not add a capital/liquidity calculator unless the case's verified facts actually require that calculation.
Primary source: BFIU Circular Letter No. 02, dated 5 February 2026, on scheduled banks' transaction-monitoring systems, and Circular Letter No. 03 of the same date on MFS providers. Check the official circular-letter register for later changes before treating either as current.
Scenario status: This is a hypothetical control-testing exercise, not a reported enforcement case or allegation against an institution.
Test objective: Determine whether monitoring coverage is risk-based, alerts are reproducible, investigations are documented and reporting decisions are supported by evidence.
Control-testing procedure:
RegTech mapping: ICMS Toolkit ↗ for control governance and evidence; Explainable AI ↗ for traceable rationale; Policy Gap Analyzer ↗ for mapping verified requirements to procedures.
Try it yourself: Prepare a sample-based audit worksheet: expected alert, actual outcome, threshold/version, reviewer, evidence link, disposition rationale, escalation timing, exception and retest result. A generated alert or missed alert does not independently establish criminal conduct.
BFIU official circular-letter register ↗
Evidence status: The circular-letter titles and dates are listed by BFIU. Scenario steps are proposed audit procedures, not text quoted from the circulars. Confirm later amendments, including any cancellation notices, before use.
Open ICMS Toolkit ↗ Open Explainable AI controls ↗ Open Policy Gap Analyzer ↗
Use ICMS to record sample testing and remediation; Explainable AI to structure questions about rationale, traceability and human review; and Policy Gap Analyzer to map only verified requirements to procedures. Use authorised test data and a controlled test environment.
Calculator relevance: This is a control-design and operating-effectiveness test, not a calculation exercise. A regulatory calculator should be linked only if a separate, evidenced metric or threshold calculation is part of the test objective.
These additional cases are summarised in original wording from official regulator or central-bank publications. Each entry distinguishes the regulator's reported findings from the practical control lessons drawn for learning. Confirm the linked notice and applicable local law before relying on the analysis.
Official source: Central Bank of Ireland, 15 September 2022.
What happened: The regulator found that legacy data filters meant transactions for certain customer categories in Danske Bank's Irish branch were not covered by its automated monitoring system for almost nine years. The issue was rooted in the way older filters had been carried forward, rather than a demonstrated one-off alert failure.
Control lesson: A monitoring system can appear to be running while entire customer groups or transaction flows remain outside its effective scope. Audit should test coverage and data lineage, not only alert volumes.
RegTech Nexus AI Mapping: Risk population → customer/product coverage → filter inventory and data lineage → scenario coverage test → exceptions and accountable remediation.
ICMS Toolkit for ownership and remediation; Explainable AI controls for traceability and review; Policy Gap Analyzer for verified requirements-to-controls mapping.
Read official Central Bank of Ireland notice ↗Official source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand, June 2026.
What happened: The Reserve Bank reported that the High Court imposed a NZ$6.731 million civil penalty after ASB admitted seven AML/CFT breaches. The findings included shortcomings in customer due diligence, ongoing monitoring, suspicious-activity reporting and related programme controls over an extended period.
Control lesson: Policy documents alone are not enough. Institutions need evidence that customer risk assessment, ongoing review, alert handling, reporting decisions and oversight operate together and on time.
RegTech Nexus AI Mapping: Legal obligation → CDD/monitoring/reporting control → customer-file and alert evidence → sample-based operating test → issue severity → remediation and retest.
Policy Gap Analyzer can structure requirement-to-control review; ICMS Toolkit can support control ownership, evidence and corrective-action thinking.
Read official Reserve Bank of New Zealand notice ↗Official source: Bank Negara Malaysia and Labuan Financial Services Authority, 14 August 2026.
What happened: Following an examination, the authorities reported that 53 suspicious transactions from 2023–2024 had not been reported promptly and that customer identity checks were inadequate in a separate onboarding matter. The authorities later imposed combined compounds of RM10 million, which the firm paid in June 2026 after prosecution proceedings had been initiated.
Control lesson: Reporting timeliness and onboarding verification should be independently testable. Audit trails need timestamps, rationale, decision ownership, escalation evidence and proof that exceptions are corrected.
RegTech Nexus AI Mapping: Customer onboarding / suspicious activity → CDD and reporting controls → KYC records and event timestamps → timeliness and completeness tests → remediation tracking.
ICMS Toolkit for accountability and action tracking; Policy Gap Analyzer for mapping the verified local requirements; Explainable AI controls where automated alerts assist review.
Read official BNM / LFSA notice ↗Official source: Monetary Authority of Singapore, 25 May 2026.
What happened: MAS imposed a S$300,000 composition penalty on a licensed trust company after identifying failures to investigate unusual transactions without an apparent lawful purpose and to file suspicious-transaction reports promptly when warranted. The regulator also identified weaknesses in staff awareness and the overall control framework.
Control lesson: Unusual activity must lead to documented inquiry, a reasoned decision and timely reporting where required. Training effectiveness and investigation quality should be tested, not assumed from attendance records.
RegTech Nexus AI Mapping: Unusual activity → investigation and reporting controls → case file and decision timestamps → sample review → staff capability and escalation gaps → retest.
ICMS Toolkit for governance and remediation; Policy Gap Analyzer for requirement mapping. This case concerns a regulated trust company, not a commercial bank.
Read official MAS notice ↗Official source: Central Bank of Ireland, 6 November 2025.
What happened: The regulator announced a settlement after Coinbase Europe accepted breaches involving incomplete monitoring of more than 30 million transactions and additional monitoring needs affecting 184,790 transactions. The agreed sanction included a reprimand and a monetary penalty of approximately €30.66 million.
Control lesson: Transaction-monitoring coverage should be reconciled to the full population of transactions. Where coverage is incomplete, institutions need documented lookback decisions, impact assessment, reporting review and independently validated remediation.
RegTech Nexus AI Mapping: Full transaction population → monitoring coverage → data/reconciliation evidence → completeness and lookback tests → impact assessment → remediation validation.
ICMS Toolkit for issue and retest tracking; Explainable AI controls for reviewability of automated signals. This is a crypto-asset service provider case, not a bank case.
Read official Central Bank of Ireland notice ↗These are starting points for source discovery. A report will not be described as containing a specific case until the relevant pages have been reviewed and the reference recorded.
Annual reports, financial-crime typologies and official AML/CFT circulars. Prioritise cases relevant to suspicious transactions, TBML, beneficial ownership and reporting controls.
Banking complaints, customer-service issues, reported irregularities and internal-control lessons. Use the original report and page references before publishing any case summary.
International typologies, risk-based guidance and reports on money laundering, terrorist financing, trade-based schemes and emerging financial-crime methods.
These pathways connect the case lesson to existing RegTech Nexus AI resources. Use fictional or anonymised examples only, verify official requirements and preserve human review.
Practise product comparability, benchmark quality, price variance rationale and supporting-document cross-checks. Do not treat price variance alone as evidence of wrongdoing.
Practise with TradeGuard ↗Turn a verified requirement into a control objective, sample test, evidence record, finding, owner, due date and retest.
Use the ICMS Toolkit ↗Start with the original rule and exact clause, confirm applicability, then record policy wording, evidence gaps and review actions.
Use Policy Gap Analyzer ↗Ask what data and rationale produced a signal, whether the result can be reproduced, who reviewed it and how the decision was documented.
Study Explainable AI controls ↗