As global elections reshape the political landscape, the future of financial crime regulation and enforcement hangs in the balance. Explore how changing leadership across major economies can influence financial integrity, compliance, and global sanctions, and learn how businesses can proactively adapt to these shifts
A Pivotal Election Year: Shaping Financial Crime Regulation
In one of the most consequential global election cycles in recent history, the implications for financial crime regulation and enforcement are coming into sharp focus. In 2024, countries representing over three-quarters of the world’s population have voted or are heading to the polls, and political transitions will inevitably bring significant changes to how governments manage financial crime and international regulations. For businesses and financial institutions, this is an era of both uncertainty and opportunity.
Financial Integrity of Election Processes
Particularly notable in a momentous election year is the issue of financial integrity of election campaigns, candidates and political parties, which has come under increasing scrutiny globally. Scandals or allegations around campaign financing have featured in many of this year’s elections. This is reflected in demand from competent authorities for Kroll’s support in this area, as part of efforts to help restore and build public trust in electoral systems.
Political Shifts and Financial Crime Regulation
Financial crime encompasses a broad range of illicit activities involving the misuse or abuse of financial systems and institutions for unlawful gain. It includes offenses such as fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion, bribery, corruption, terrorist financing, tax evasion and cybercrime.
Promises to crack down on corruption often feature in political campaigns, in both developed and developing countries. In recent years, increased political pressure on regulators has impacted enforcement action and the tone from the top. While regulation and enforcement mechanisms in advanced economies typically maintain a certain degree of independence from the political process, elections can lead to significant shifts in the focus and intensity of financial crime regulation and enforcement.
For example, in the U.S., the emphasis of a Harris-led government may be quite different than a potential second Trump administration. Under Biden-Harris, the administration has placed a significant focus on global efforts to counter corruption, “kleptocracy” among authoritarian governments. Initiatives like the Summit for Democracy have seen democracies worldwide coming together to combat corrupt regimes. This has impacted how the U.S. approaches financial crimes on a global basis. Often, a change in administration can lead to either tougher or lighter-touch regulations and enforcement, also reflecting the state of economies and the need perceived by politicians to lighten the regulatory burden on companies to support economic growth. Of course, in financial crime, this can be counterproductive and make economies less stable and more vulnerable. Businesses need certainty and need to know their money will be safe and that they are operating in countries with high standards of integrity and rule of law.
Sanctions in a Changing Political Era
Sanctions regimes are another area where political change, including foreign policy, could result in significant shifts. During his first term, Trump was known for his aggressive stance on sanctions, particularly against Iran. If reelected, he could take a tougher approach on security concerns with Iran and trade relations with China while taking a different approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
This shift may change the focus of challenges that financial institutions have faced with Russia-Ukraine sanctions, but it also could introduce new challenges. Financial institutions must be prepared to adapt quickly to the changes, not just in the entities targeted by sanctions but in the complexity and nature of these sanctions.
The changing nature of sanctions will require businesses to have flexible, dynamic compliance systems. Institutions must be ready to implement systems that can respond swiftly to these new realities.
The Role of AI in Financial Crime and Sanctions Compliance
Similarly, regulatory approaches to artificial intelligence (AI), which is quickly becoming a critical tool in tackling the challenges of financial crime, vary considerably and may change or evolve as a result of the outcomes of this year’s global wave of elections.
Regulatory uncertainty notwithstanding, AI is likely to play a growing role in combating financial crime, managing sanctions and ensuring compliance. Its ability to process vast amounts of data efficiently makes it indispensable for financial institutions. However, AI is not a one-size-fits-all solution. For institutions with multiple legacy systems and data integrity and management challenges, implementing AI without fully understanding its underlying issues could exacerbate existing compliance problems.
AI can help streamline processes, making compliance more efficient and accurate. But without proper oversight and expertise, it could lead to unintended consequences. AI must learn from something, and if the former practice has not been effective, then it may simply optimize ineffective controls and give firms a false sense of security. This is where professional firms come into play, offering the expertise to evaluate an organization’s readiness for AI and helping develop tailored solutions that align with their specific compliance needs.
Navigating Global Regulatory Fragmentation
One of the most significant challenges facing financial institutions today is the potential for greater fragmentation in the implementation of global standards. As nationalism and protectionism rise, we may see this undermining collaboration across borders and the more joined up approach to fighting financial crime that we need. Challenges to a single, global standard may continue to rise, making it difficult for international institutions to maintain a globally consistent compliance strategy.
Financial institutions must now navigate a world where multilateral solutions are increasingly difficult to implement. They are facing competing or even conflicting demands that often vary across jurisdictions.
In some parts of the world, political polarization and instability have contributed to an erosion of trust and transparency in local institutions. This has led global financial institutions, for example, to derisk from certain jurisdictions and operations over concerns that AML and financial crime regulation and compliance are not sufficiently robust.
As global regulations, or at least their implementation by national authorities, face the prospect of fragmentation, financial institutions must be prepared to flex their compliance strategies depending on the country they are operating in. This will require greater agility and a more nuanced understanding of local political dynamics.
Staying Ahead: Adapting to an Evolving Regulatory Landscape
The 2024 election cycle has significant implications for how governments handle financial crime, sanctions and compliance. Whether it’s a shift in U.S. focus or European countries pushing for stronger AML regulations, the global regulatory landscape will continue to shift. For financial institutions, staying ahead of these changes means investing in dynamic, adaptable systems and leveraging technology to improve efficiency, effectiveness and compliance. However, implementing these solutions requires careful planning and expertise.
As financial crime regulation becomes more complicated, businesses must remain vigilant, agile and prepared to respond quickly to shifting regulatory demands. Whether dealing with new sanctions or ensuring the financial integrity of election processes, the stakes have never been higher.
Ad