Operationalising Responsible AI Governance in Financial Crime Compliance: An Evidence-Based Control Framework for Financial Institutions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65921/wg5rcn92Keywords:
responsible artificial intelligence, financial crime compliance, anti-money laundering, AI governance, human oversight, transaction monitoringAbstract
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
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
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Chiaw Boon Lee (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in Academos Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows others to share, copy, distribute, and adapt the work for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited.
Authors retain copyright of their articles, and full publishing rights are granted to the journal.


