This analysis reveals how reliance on acronyms in AML/CFT can obscure meaningful outcomes, suggesting a need for better evaluation metrics.
The field of AML and counter-terrorism financing CFT relies heavily onacronyms because they compress complexity into something thatsounds controllable. But that compression has a cost. When FATF, AML,CFT, and similar terms become the primary language of progress, westart scoring ourselves on outputs we can count, policies updated,controls documented, training completed, Suspicious Activity Reportsfiled; rather than outcomes. That are harder to fake: Networksdisrupted, corrupt wealth blocked, victims compensated, trust restored.That’s how blind spots form: the system tends to reward what is easiestto prove. If you read the public materials closely, the same failuremodes show up again and again, no matter how mature the policiessound.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Priscila Chauhan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: