Biases in risk assessments under EU anti-money laundering law – evidence of the better-than-average effect from Germany

Abstract

PurposeAnti-money laundering (AML) obligations follow a risk-based approach, making their extent subject to the degree of AML risk. Money Laundering Reporting Officers (MLROs) must constantly assess risks, for example, by conducting annual risk assessments of the company. The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether MLROs’ risk assessments are biased in form of a better-than-average (BTA) effect, meaning whether they favourably assess their own company’s risk compared to that of the average competitor. Additionally, MLROs’ general risk assessment capabilities are researched.Design/methodology/approachA survey of MLROs of German companies was conducted (n = 228). It tests for a BTA effect in participants’ risk assessments of their own company as well as for errors in risk assessments of other industries.FindingsMLROs’ risk assessments are biased by a BTA effect across all industries. They view their own company’s risk to be below that of the average competitor. Additionally, MLROs are not able to correctly assess industries’ AML risks compared to the national risk assessment. Risks were especially underestimated for high-risk industries. Biases were partially found to be higher among MLROs from the non-financial sector.Practical implicationsRisk-based AML measures are likely to be at least partially ineffective, calling the risk-based approach into question. Regular trainings of MLROs need to include awareness for biases in risk assessments. A more stringent and effective supervision, especially in the non-financial sector, is called for.Originality/valueTo the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper is the first to show that a BTA effect exists among MLROs.