Every fine tells a story about gaps in process, controls, or oversight. And those stories can help you focus on what really matters: getting the basics right, spotting blind spots early, and making sure your board understands the risks that come from cutting corners.

When regulators issue AML-related penalties, they often include detailed explanations. If you’re running an AML function, read them. Share them. Build internal training around them. They highlight the kinds of failures that lead to real-world harm: money laundering through your systems, terrorist financing that could’ve been stopped, or criminal networks exploiting simple process gaps.

There’s also the message these penalties send about priorities. Regulators aren’t expecting perfection. But they are looking for evidence that you took risk seriously, made proportionate decisions, and escalated issues when needed. If your risk assessment is templated, your monitoring rules haven’t been reviewed in years, or your onboarding is driven by commercial pressure rather than compliance concerns – you’re in the danger zone.

For AML professionals, financial penalties often expose something deeper: misalignment between compliance and senior leadership. It’s one thing to write a policy. It’s another to enforce it when it’s unpopular or expensive. Penalties often follow cases where MLROs were ignored, compliance teams under-resourced, or controls bypassed in the name of growth. 

But penalties can also be a lever. When you’re trying to get budget signed off, win support for a tech upgrade, or push back on onboarding a risky client – pointing to real-world fines can make the argument clearer. There’s no better proof that AML compliance isn’t a tick-box exercise than showing the cost of getting it wrong.