Description

A focused course, tailored for you

AML Transformation for Governance Leads

Build the programme architecture, evidence pack, and regulator-ready reporting that AML transformation actually requires.

AML transformation programmes at major financial institutions produce detailed roadmaps and board-level narratives. They rarely produce the governance artefacts a regulator examines: a traceable control design rationale, a live gap register with closure evidence, an assurance calendar that maps to the customer risk segments the programme is supposed to address. When AUSTRAC or APRA arrives, the transformation narrative and the examination evidence pack describe two different programmes.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

The problem is not that the transformation work is not happening. It is that the governance layer was built for internal consumption, not for external scrutiny. Programme status reports, steering committee minutes, and roadmap milestone trackers are not what an examiner opens. They open the control inventory, the testing calendar, the risk appetite statement, the escalation log, and the remediation evidence for issues that were self-identified. If those artefacts do not exist in the form the regulator expects, the transformation narrative becomes a liability rather than an asset: it proves you knew what needed to change and cannot show it has changed.

What you walk away with

Design a programme governance architecture that holds up under AUSTRAC and APRA supervisory examination, not just internal audit.
Build a control design rationale document that traces each AML control back to the risk appetite statement and customer risk segmentation.
Construct a gap assessment methodology that produces findings in the format regulators expect, with closure evidence attached.
Establish an escalation and issues management framework where every identified deficiency has a traceable path from discovery to board awareness to remediation.
Produce the assurance calendar and testing evidence pack that maps to the programme's highest-risk customer segments and product exposures.
Write the regulator-ready reporting layer that translates programme status into the language and format that supervisory correspondence requires.

The 12 modules

Module 1. What Regulators Actually Examine

A structured walkthrough of how AUSTRAC supervisory examinations and APRA prudential reviews approach AML programme governance, based on published enforcement outcomes and supervisory guidance. Covers the five artefact categories examiners open first, the common governance gaps identified in major Australian enforcement actions, and how to read your current programme against that checklist before an examination begins. Produces a self-assessment template you can run internally.

Module 2. Risk Appetite to Control Design: The Traceability Chain

Every AML control must trace back to a risk appetite decision. This module builds the traceability chain from the board-approved risk appetite statement through customer risk segmentation, product exposure mapping, and individual control objectives. Covers how to document the design rationale for each control in a form that answers the examiner question: why does this control exist, and does it address the risk you said it addresses. Includes a worked example using a multi-product institution.

Module 3. The Control Inventory: What to Include and Why

A practical framework for structuring the AML control inventory, including the fields that matter for examination purposes: control owner, design rationale, testing frequency, last test date, last test result, open exceptions, and the escalation path for exceptions above threshold. Covers the difference between a compliance register (internal) and a control inventory (examination-ready), and how to migrate from one to the other without rebuilding from scratch. Includes template structure and field definitions.

Module 4. Gap Assessment Methodology

Structured approach to conducting an AML programme gap assessment that produces findings in regulatory-compatible format. Covers scoping against the AML/CTF Act and Rules, the AUSTRAC typologies relevant to your customer and product mix, and the FATF mutual evaluation methodology. Focuses on documenting findings so each gap has a severity rating, a root cause, a remediation owner, a target close date, and an evidence standard. Produces a gap register template for the next internal assessment cycle.

Module 5. Assurance Calendar Design

How to build an assurance calendar that maps testing activity to the programme's highest-risk segments rather than to an arbitrary annual cycle. Covers the three assurance lines in an AML programme context, how to sequence first-line testing, second-line review, and internal audit engagement so they do not all land in the same quarter, and how to document the calendar in a format that shows a regulator the programme is actively monitored. Includes a worked schedule for a medium-complexity institution.

Module 6. Transaction Monitoring Governance: The Oversight Layer

Transaction monitoring is the detection engine; this module covers the governance layer that sits above it. Covers model risk governance for transaction monitoring: how to document the alert threshold rationale, how to evidence tuning decisions, how to record the outcome of back-testing, and how to demonstrate that the model is calibrated to the institution's actual customer and transaction risk profile rather than vendor defaults. Designed for governance leads who own the oversight of the detection function without owning the technology.

Module 7. Customer Risk Segmentation: Governance and Evidence

The customer risk segmentation methodology is the foundation of the AML programme. This module covers how to document the segmentation rationale, how to evidence that the methodology is applied consistently across the customer lifecycle, and how to demonstrate that high-risk segment definitions are calibrated to the institution's actual exposure rather than generic industry categories. Covers the documentation requirements for politically exposed persons, correspondent banking relationships, and high-value cash-intensive businesses.

Module 8. Issues and Escalation Framework

A structured framework for managing AML programme issues from identification through to board awareness and remediation closure. Covers how to design the escalation matrix so that issue severity determines the escalation path automatically, how to document board and senior management awareness in a form that holds up to examination, and how to close issues with evidence rather than assertions. Includes the specific escalation log fields that AUSTRAC enforcement outcomes have cited as absent in deficient programmes.

Module 9. Remediation Programme Governance

When a gap assessment or regulatory finding generates a remediation programme, the governance of that programme is itself examined. This module covers how to structure a remediation programme so that each action item has a clear owner, a measurable completion standard, and a documented evidence pack. Covers how to report remediation progress to the board in a format that demonstrates genuine oversight rather than status-update theatre. Includes a remediation tracker template with the fields examiners look for.

Module 10. Regulator-Ready Reporting: Correspondence and Submissions

AML governance leads often draft or review the institution's formal correspondence with AUSTRAC and APRA, including response to supervisory notices, self-reporting of significant breaches, and programme update submissions. This module covers the structure and tone of regulator-ready submissions, how to frame programme status honestly without creating new regulatory risk, and how to use the submission as a governance artefact that also updates internal stakeholders. Includes annotated examples of strong and weak submission structures.

Module 11. Board and Senior Management Reporting

The board-level AML report is evidence that the institution's most senior governing body received, understood, and acted on material AML risk information. This module covers structuring the board report to meet both internal governance needs and external examination standards, documenting board questions and management responses, and ensuring minutes capture the substance of the discussion. Covers the tension between concise board reporting and the detail examiners expect.

Module 12. Transformation Programme Governance: Closing the Evidence Gap

The final module brings the transformation narrative and the examination-ready evidence pack together. Covers structuring the transformation programme's governance layer so every milestone has an associated evidence artefact, maintaining a live transformation register that can be handed to an examiner without preparation, and reporting transformation progress to the board and regulator in a format demonstrating both ambition and accountability. Produces the transformation governance framework template as the capstone deliverable.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Modules 1-3 address the foundational gap: you have a transformation narrative but not an examination-ready governance architecture. These modules build the traceability chain from risk appetite to individual controls.

Modules 4-7 address the evidence layer: the gap assessment methodology, assurance calendar, transaction monitoring governance, and customer risk segmentation documentation that examiners open first.

Modules 8-10 address the issues and remediation layer: the escalation framework, remediation programme governance, and regulator-ready reporting that demonstrate the programme responds to its own findings.

Modules 11-12 address the senior governance layer: board and senior management reporting that meets examination standards, and the transformation programme governance framework that closes the gap between the approved roadmap and the examination evidence pack.

What you get with this course

12 written modules covering the full AML programme governance architecture from risk appetite to regulator-ready reporting.
Downloadable templates: control inventory structure, gap register, assurance calendar, escalation log, remediation tracker, board report framework, and transformation governance framework.
Worked examples drawn from multi-product Australian institution scenarios, including high-risk segment definitions, transaction monitoring governance documentation, and regulator correspondence structure.
The hand-built implementation playbook, tailored to the AML Transformation and Governance role, delivered alongside course access within 24 hours of purchase.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Course access provisioned within 24 hours of purchase.

The hand-built implementation playbook, tailored to the AML Transformation and Governance role, delivered alongside course access.

All 12 modules and downloadable templates available immediately on access.

Before and after

Before

The transformation programme has a board-approved roadmap and strong internal reporting. When a regulatory examination is scheduled, significant preparation time is spent constructing the evidence pack that should have existed throughout: the control design rationale, the gap register with closure evidence, the escalation log, the assurance calendar. The examination reveals that the transformation narrative and the governance documentation describe two different states of the programme.

After

The governance architecture runs in parallel with the transformation programme rather than as a retrospective construction. Every milestone has an associated evidence artefact. The control inventory is examination-ready at any point in the cycle. The board report and the regulator submission draw from the same governance layer rather than being drafted separately. When an examination is scheduled, the preparation is a review, not a rebuild.

What happens if you do not address this

AML transformation programmes that do not close the evidence gap between the narrative and the governance layer create compounding regulatory risk. Each examination cycle that reveals the gap is another finding that must be remediated, another remediation programme that must be governed and evidenced, and another round of board and regulator reporting that requires the programme to explain why the same structural issue recurs. The cost is not just examination preparation time; it is the cumulative governance liability of a programme that has been reported as transforming for multiple cycles without producing examination-ready evidence that it has.

Who it is for

AML Transformation and Governance professionals at major financial institutions who own the programme architecture, the board and regulator reporting, and the internal assurance function. Typically responsible for translating a board-approved transformation arc into the operational governance layer that a supervisory examination can follow end to end. Accountable for control design, gap assessment, escalation frameworks, and the evidence that remediation closed what it was supposed to close.

Who this is NOT for. Frontline transaction monitoring analysts. Technology teams building the detection engine. Compliance officers whose primary work is customer due diligence rather than programme governance. Anyone whose role is to execute controls rather than design and evidence the governance architecture around them.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. 12 modules at approximately 45-60 minutes each. Designed for working professionals; each module is self-contained and can be completed in a single sitting or across multiple sessions. The implementation playbook is designed to be applied directly to your current programme governance work.

Why $199 is the right number

Internal AML training programmes typically cover regulatory requirements and typologies rather than programme governance architecture. External AML certification courses (CAMS, CGSS) cover the knowledge base but not the specific artefact and documentation layer that Australian regulatory examinations require. Consulting engagements that produce governance frameworks are typically scoped at $50,000-$150,000 and deliver a framework document rather than the skill to build and maintain the governance architecture yourself. This course builds the skill and delivers the templates.

FAQ

Is this course relevant if our transformation programme is already underway?

Yes. The most common use case is a programme that is 12-24 months into transformation and approaching a regulatory examination or internal audit cycle. The governance architecture modules and templates are designed to be applied to an existing programme, not just to one being built from scratch.

Does the course cover the specific AUSTRAC examination methodology?

Yes. Modules 1 and 10 specifically address AUSTRAC supervisory examination structure and regulator-ready correspondence. The gap assessment methodology in Module 4 is structured around the AML/CTF Act and Rules and the FATF mutual evaluation methodology that informs AUSTRAC's supervisory approach.

How does the hand-built implementation playbook work?

Within 24 hours of purchase, a playbook is built specifically for the AML Transformation and Governance role. It takes the course frameworks and applies them to the specific governance challenges, examination risks, and documentation requirements of that role at a major financial institution. It is a working document, not a summary of the course.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.