Operationalising Responsible AI Governance in Financial Crime Compliance: An Evidence-Based Control Framework for Financial Institutions

Authors

  • Chiaw Boon Lee Golden Gate University, USA Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65921/wg5rcn92

Keywords:

responsible artificial intelligence, financial crime compliance, anti-money laundering, AI governance, human oversight, transaction monitoring

Abstract

Purpose: This paper analyses how responsible artificial intelligence principles can be translated into auditable controls to support artificial-intelligence-enabled financial crime compliance. Methodology: An integrative literature review and design-science method synthesize the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Fairness, Ethics, Accountability and Transparency principles, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework, Financial Action Task Force guidelines and selected international standards. Findings: The paper designs the Governance to Evidence Responsible AI Framework, which contains six governance control domains: mandate and ownership, data and fairness, model validation, decision orchestration, human accountability and continuous assurance. The transaction monitoring application example shows how every governance requirement can be matched to a right of accountable decision, an operational control and evidence retention. Conclusion: The responsible AI adoption requires controlling the whole decision pathway rather than evaluating model accuracy. The organizations must be able to reconstruct and challenge both decisions to escalate and decisions not to escalate. Practical implications: Financial institutions should deploy use-case classification proportionally to the use-case risk level, independent validation, human oversight that carries meaning, versioned decision logs, closure sampling and suspension triggers. Data Availability Statement: The paper describes a conceptual framework and does not involve any human participants, confidential data about customers and production data.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Autio, C., Schwartz, R., Dunietz, J., Jain, S., Stanley, M., Tabassi, E., & Hall, P. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile (NIST AI 600-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2021). Principles for operational resilience. Bank for International Settlements. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d516.htm

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, & Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. (2011). Supervisory guidance on model risk management (SR Letter 11-7). https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1107.htm

Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective, part II: The application of socio-technical theory. MIS Quarterly, 1(4), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/249019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249019

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1702.08608

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

Financial Action Task Force. (2021). Opportunities and challenges of new technologies for AML/CFT. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Opportunities-Challenges-of-New-Technologies-for-AML-CFT.pdf

Financial Action Task Force. (2022). Partnering in the fight against financial crime: Data protection, technology and private sector information sharing. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Partnering-int-the-fight-against-financial-crime.pdf

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2018). Principles to promote fairness, ethics, accountability and transparency in the use of artificial intelligence and data analytics in Singapore’s financial sector. https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/News-and-Publications/Monographs-and-Information-Papers/FEAT-Principles-Final.pdf

Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2022a). FEAT principles assessment methodology. https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/mas-media-library/news/media-releases/2022/veritas-document-3---feat-principles-assessment-methodology.pdf

Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2022b). FEAT principles assessment case studies. https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/mas/news/media-releases/veritas-document-6---feat-principles-assessment-case-studies.pdf

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z

Published

15-09-2026

Issue

Section

Review Paper

How to Cite

Lee, C. B. (2026). Operationalising Responsible AI Governance in Financial Crime Compliance: An Evidence-Based Control Framework for Financial Institutions. Academos Journal, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.65921/wg5rcn92