Visibility gaps in Correspondent Banking: why traditional controls miss hidden risks

Financial institutions face an uncomfortable truth: despite investing billions in anti-money laundering controls, they’re losing the battle against financial crime in correspondent banking. As we’ve talked about at length, between $800 billion and $2 trillion in illicit funds move through the global financial system annually. Less than 1% of these transactions are detected.

The problem isn’t a lack of manpower. Banks often employ thousands of compliance professionals. Yet, criminals continue to exploit fundamental visibility gaps in correspondent banking networks, hiding illicit transactions within legitimate cross-border payment flows.

These visibility challenges create serious risks. Banks struggle to track funds through complex payment chains, assess the true nature of trade finance transactions, and verify the legitimacy of their partner banks’ customers. Traditional risk controls, designed for simpler banking relationships, simply cannot address these multi-layered risks.

The complexities of correspondent banking

Correspondent banking networks process millions of cross-border payments daily. These vital channels enable international trade and global commerce. They also create the perfect conditions for concealing illicit funds.

The complexity starts with basic payment structures. A single international transfer typically flows through three to four different banks before reaching its destination. Each bank sees only its immediate partners in the transaction chain, creating natural blind spots that criminals exploit.

Trade finance adds another layer of opacity. Legitimate trading structures (like letters of credit and documentary collections) require complex documentation and multiple parties. These same structures can be manipulated through techniques like over-invoicing or phantom shipments, allowing criminals to move illicit funds under the guise of normal trade.

For instance, a trading company in Asia might pay a supplier in Europe through correspondent banking networks. The payment passes through multiple intermediary banks. Each bank conducts its own screening, but none can see the complete transaction chain. If the underlying trade documents are falsified, traditional transaction monitoring systems won’t catch it.

That’s why banks can’t rely solely on checking individual transactions or reviewing partner banks’ AML policies. They need visibility into complete payment flows and the ability to detect suspicious patterns across entire correspondent networks.

Correspondent banking’s visibility challenges

In essence, banks need to be able to clearly see who’s sending money, who’s receiving it, and why the transaction is taking place. Yet, correspondent banking relationships fundamentally limit this visibility.

Banks operating in correspondent networks face three interconnected challenges that traditional controls struggle to address. Each challenge creates specific blind spots that criminals exploit to move illicit funds undetected:

#1. Lack of transparency in transaction chains

Financial institutions face a fundamental limitation: they can only see their direct relationships. A payment that travels through five banks creates five separate transaction records. No single bank sees the complete journey.

This fragmentation makes it nearly impossible to track high-risk funds. Banks must rely on limited transaction details and SWIFT messages that may not contain complete originator or beneficiary information. When funds move through nested correspondent relationships, visibility becomes even more restricted.

Here’s the bottom line: A payment might seem perfectly legitimate to each individual bank in the chain while actually concealing criminal activity. Without end-to-end visibility, banks struggle to identify the classic “layering” stage of money laundering.

#2. Cross-border complexity

Regulatory expectations vary dramatically across jurisdictions. What constitutes adequate due diligence in one country may fall short in another. This inconsistency creates natural weak points in global payment networks.

And this is where banks run into trouble. They must balance competing requirements while maintaining efficient payment processing. This complexity often leads to ineffective compliance approaches.

As if that’s not enough, foreign exchange transactions add another layer of complexity. Currency conversions can obscure the true value of transactions, particularly when they involve currencies with limited global circulation. Criminals exploit these conversion points to further disguise illicit funds.

#3. Third-party dependencies

Perhaps the most significant challenge is the reliance on respondent banks to perform adequate customer due diligence. Correspondent banks rarely have direct relationships with their partners’ customers, so they must trust that their respondent banks maintain robust KYC practices.

This trust-based system creates significant risks. A correspondent bank might have strong internal controls but remain exposed to risks introduced by its partner institutions. Due diligence on respondent banks often focuses on policies and procedures rather than actual implementation effectiveness.

The lack of visibility into ultimate beneficial owners is particularly problematic. Complex corporate structures and offshore entities can hide the true ownership of accounts. When these entities engage in cross-border transactions through multiple banking relationships, tracing beneficial ownership becomes nearly impossible using traditional methods.

Why traditional correspondent bank AML controls fall short

Traditional AML and risk controls were designed for more straightforward banking relationships. They rely on direct customer knowledge, transaction screening against watchlists, and rules-based monitoring. As we’ve seen, these approaches increasingly fail to address the complex risks in correspondent banking.

Rules-based transaction monitoring systems generate excessive false positives. A typical bank investigates thousands of alerts monthly, with over 95% requiring no further action. This creates a resource drain that diverts attention from genuine high-risk activity. Compliance teams spend more time clearing false positives than identifying true threats.

Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) processes struggle with scale and depth. Banks must review thousands of respondent relationships, often with limited resources. The resulting assessments frequently focus on documentation rather than actual risk activity. A respondent bank might have perfect policies on paper but inadequate implementation. 

Information silos further limit effectiveness. Transaction data, customer information, and relationship details often sit in separate systems. This fragmentation prevents banks from connecting the dots between suspicious patterns. A suspicious transaction may never be linked to a high-risk customer relationship due to these data barriers.

Most critically, traditional controls operate within institutional boundaries. Each bank monitors only its portion of the payment chain. This creates perfect conditions for sophisticated criminals who structure transactions across multiple institutions to avoid detection. No single bank sees the complete picture.

This all leads to regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and de-risking pressures. Many institutions have responded by exiting correspondent relationships entirely, particularly in higher-risk jurisdictions. This approach solves the compliance problem but creates significant economic impacts for affected regions.

The evolution of risk detection: a more effective approach

The good news is that banks are moving from reactive monitoring systems to proactive intelligence frameworks. This is particularly important for correspondent banking, where traditional controls have reached their limits. You can read more about our approach here. 

Leading institutions now analyze patterns of activity over time instead of solely relying on rules to flag suspicious transactions. This approach helps identify anomalies that wouldn’t trigger traditional alerts. A series of perfectly structured transactions might pass rules-based screening while still revealing suspicious patterns when viewed holistically.

Similarly, by examining relationships between accounts, entities, and transactions, banks can detect coordinated activity that suggests money laundering networks. These techniques help compliance teams see beyond individual transactions to identify entire criminal ecosystems.

Yet significant barriers remain. The most sophisticated analytics still face the fundamental limitation of siloed data. A bank can only analyze the transactions and relationships it directly observes. True transformation requires overcoming this constraint without compromising data privacy or security.

Federated learning offers a breakthrough solution. This technology enables banks to collaborate on risk detection without sharing sensitive customer data. Machine learning models train across multiple institutions, learning from diverse transaction patterns while raw data remains within each bank’s secure environment.

The practical benefits are substantial. Federated learning helps banks detect high-risk patterns like identification nesting and unusual jurisdiction activity across correspondent networks. It improves false positive ratios by comparing suspicious behavior against a much broader dataset, reducing noise and highlighting genuine risks.

Real-time analysis adds another dimension. Traditional reviews often happen days or weeks after suspicious transactions occur. Advanced detection systems can identify risks as they emerge, enabling faster intervention. This shift from post-transaction to near-real-time monitoring represents a significant advantage in disrupting financial crime.

Of course, the most effective approaches balance technology with human expertise. Machine learning models excel at pattern recognition across vast datasets, but experienced investigators provide crucial context and judgment. Successful implementation creates a virtuous cycle where human insight improves models, and better models enable investigators to focus on complex, high-value cases.

The investment pays off through multiple benefits: 

   ▪️reduced false positives, 

   ▪️improved risk detection, 

   ▪️lower compliance costs, 

   ▪️and stronger regulatory standing. 

For many institutions, advanced detection capabilities also enable them to maintain valuable correspondent relationships that might otherwise be abandoned due to risk concerns.

The path forward: Collaboration without compromise

The most promising approaches enable banks to share insights without compromising data privacy or security. Federated learning technology represents a breakthrough in this area, allowing institutions to benefit from collective intelligence while maintaining strict control over sensitive customer information.

The benefits extend beyond individual institutions. By strengthening the integrity of correspondent banking networks, these approaches help maintain vital financial connections to developing economies. Rather than wholesale de-risking, banks can make more nuanced, data-driven decisions about relationship risk.

The technology exists today to close these critical visibility gaps. The question is no longer whether banks can effectively manage correspondent banking risks but whether they’ll adopt the collaborative approaches needed to transform AML effectiveness across the global financial system. 

Ready to level up your correspondent banking controls? 

   👉 Kickstart a conversation today   👉Follow us on LinkedIn for more