Thank you very much for inviting me to this exciting conference on
the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to fight financial crime. The
recently created Anti Financial Crime Digital Hub is a welcome
initiative for pooling resources to combat money laundering and
terrorist financing through new technologies and AI.
In 1986, the historian Melvin Kranzberg stated his six laws of technology. The first is: “Technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral.”
Let me unpack that a bit.
To
state the obvious: technology is neither a panacea nor a poison. It is
basically a tool that can serve multiple purposes. The proverbial hammer
can be used to build a home or to hurt somebody. Chlorine can be used
for sanitation but also for chemical warfare. And AI can help identify
potentially suspicious transactions but, if used wrongly, it can also
undermine fundamental rights such as the right to non-discrimination or
privacy.
The challenges and opportunities of digital
transformation often go hand in hand. While the digitalisation of banks’
value chains may create challenges for their know-your-customer
obligations, machine learning solutions are already helping banks to
become more efficient when conducting customer due diligence,
identifying ultimate beneficial owners and monitoring transactions.
Technology
is fundamentally a human activity. As such, it reflects not only the
cultural context of the society in which it is used, but also its
biases. Because technology is designed and programmed by humans, it is
not neutral, just as our societies are not neutral. One of the most
famous examples is the risk of bias in AI, which may lead to
discriminatory outcomes if not properly identified, monitored and
mitigated.
If you allow me to adapt a popular quote from
Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, I will say that technology is neither good nor
bad, but humans make it so.
So, what does this mean for supervisors?
Technological
solutions offer the possibility to deliver tremendous benefits and we
should be ready to harness them. But any technology solution needs to be
buttressed by three pillars: an appropriate regulatory framework,
sufficient supervisory oversight and, last but not least, a deep
understanding by users – banks and supervisors alike – not only of the
potential but also the limitations and risks of new technologies.
Europe needs a strong AML authority and framework
Let
me begin with a short overview of where Europe stands in the reform of
its framework for anti-money laundering and combating the financing of
terrorism, or the AML/CFT framework for short. Following various money
laundering scandals in recent years, Europe has embarked on an ambitious
endeavour to reform its AML/CFT framework.
Given the high-profile
experiences that shined a light on shortcomings in our framework, it is
important to fix the gaps we identified. While we are not responsible
at the ECB for the supervision of compliance with AML/CFT regulations,
as prudential supervisors, we are keenly aware of our responsibilities
that arise where AML/CFT compliance failures ultimately create
reputational and franchise threats or even threaten a bank’s survival.
Deficiencies in a bank’s AML/CFT framework are often symptomatic of
deeper structural problems in governance, risk management, and internal
controls.
In my view, the proposed establishment of a new European
AML authority should build upon some of the lessons learned when
creating European banking supervision. These lessons cover three areas.
SSM
© ECB - European Central Bank
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article