AI-enabled methodsAnnual study
AML BenchmarkTake the 8-minute case
For firms
AML BenchmarkInternal business case

AML Benchmark team pilot — £750

Prepared for internal approval · 11 sectors covered · amlbenchmark.com

Purpose
Measure whether the financial crime team recognises the money laundering methods currently in use, and identify which methods are consistently missed. Existing MI — training completion, SAR volumes, QA sampling — measures activity and process rather than judgement.
Scope
One cohort of up to 25 people, working the assessment for our sector: timed cases drawn from the 23 in the catalogue, selected and weighted by the methods that apply to this firm.
Cost
£750 for the cohort — £30 per analyst at a full cohort. Invoiced, not charged to a card. No VAT is charged.
Integration required
None. Nothing to install, no accounts to provision, no connection to any internal system. Participants work in a browser on a link we issue.
Customer data
None leaves the firm. The cases use fictional customers and transactions; the methods behind them are taken from published regulatory, court and agency sources.
Confidentiality
A confidential cohort is available and is the default. Management sees completion and team-level gaps without seeing individual scores. Named and fully anonymous modes are also available, and whichever is chosen is stated to each participant before they begin.
Output delivered
An AML Judgment Gap Report covering the score distribution across the team, detection rates for every method, the methods most frequently missed, the over-escalation rate, the priority order for remediation, and the evidence behind each finding. A one-page board summary is generated with it, reproduced overleaf. The full report runs to every method that applies, with its source and what to do about it — a worked example is published at amlbenchmark.com/report/sample/banking.
Ongoing commitment
None. There is no licence, no minimum term and no notice period. The cohort is a single purchase.
If we continue
£750 is credited against an annual licence taken within 90 days. Licences start at £2,500 a year and exist to re-test after remediation on rotated cases, showing whether judgement improved.
AML Benchmark is a trading name of Net Werth Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 12718042. Results are a diagnostic and carry no regulatory standing, and are not a professional qualification. A data processing agreement, a completed due diligence questionnaire or a response to your own supplier form are available on request.

Appendix — what the pilot produces

AML BenchmarkAML Judgment Gap Report · Summary

Board summary

Firm
Example firm
Assessment
Retail and Commercial Banking
Cohort
14 participants
Prepared
Example

Example only. The cases, the methods and the sources are real and are what your team would sit. The scores are invented, for a hypothetical cohort. Your own summary carries your own results and nothing else.

22%of applicable methods detected15 of 68Material gaps
19%of runs escalated the whole queueIncluding customers whose explanation was on file

  1. What was tested?

    14 people worked the Retail and Commercial Banking assessment against 68 money laundering methods that apply to this firm, each documented in a regulator, court or agency source.

    23 timed cases · 322 completed runs

  2. What did the team detect well?

    15 of 68 methods were detected across the cohort, including Accounts Prepared to Legitimise Falsified Records, Insolvency as a Laundering Endpoint and Loan-Back Arrangements.

    22% of applicable methods detected

  3. What was missed?

    15 methods were missed across the cohort. The most material are Agentic Laundering and Automated Smurfing, Laundering and Fraud as a Service and Mirror Transfers and Daigou Purchasing.

    38 further methods partially recognised

  4. Where did unnecessary escalation occur?

    19% of measurable runs escalated every alert in the queue, including customers whose explanation was already documented in the file.

    54 of 280 runs

  5. What should be remediated first?

    Agentic Laundering and Automated Smurfing, Laundering and Fraud as a Service and Mirror Transfers and Daigou Purchasing — ranked by the share of the assessment the cases carrying them represent.

  6. When should the team be re-tested?

    After remediation, on rotated cases, so the second sitting measures judgement rather than memory of the first. Ninety days is the usual interval.

Every method named is documented in a regulator, court or agency source; the citations are in the full AML Judgment Gap Report. Results are a diagnostic and carry no regulatory standing.AML Benchmark is a trading name of Net Werth Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 12718042. amlbenchmark.com

Request a team pilot once this is approved, or look at a sample report first.