Description

A focused course, tailored for you

Multi-Jurisdiction Regulatory Mapping for Global Finance

Build the implementation skills to keep a cross-border financial portfolio compliant across APRA, ASIC, FCA, and MAS without starting from scratch in each market.

The APRA obligation and the FCA requirement cover the same risk, but their evidence standards, control language, and documentation cadence are different enough that teams routinely build four separate compliance artefacts where one well-structured matrix would do. The cost is not just hours. It is the review cycle, the board-pack commentary, and the month-end reconciliation that arrives late because nobody owns the join.

$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

At a firm with active books in Sydney, London, Hong Kong, and Singapore, the compliance posture is only as strong as the weakest cross-border join. APRA CPS 220 and 234 demand specific risk and operational resilience evidence. ASIC RG 255 and 78 add a second layer of documentation obligations. FCA SYSC and SMCR impose a third. MAS TRM and MAS 626 add a fourth. Each regulator wants its own artefact format, its own control ownership mapping, and its own attestation cadence. The result is a team that spends most of its implementation hours re-expressing the same underlying control in four different languages rather than improving the control itself. When the risk committee asks for a reconciled view, the answer is usually a manually assembled spreadsheet that no one trusts by the time it reaches the board pack. This course teaches the skill to fix that: how to build one structured matrix that satisfies all four regulators from a single source, how to map overlapping requirements to shared artefacts, and how to handle the genuine conflicts where the frameworks diverge.

What you walk away with

Build a multi-jurisdiction control matrix that maps APRA, ASIC, FCA, and MAS requirements to shared artefacts rather than four separate documentation sets.
Identify which controls can be evidenced once and attested to multiple regulators, reducing documentation hours by targeting the joins rather than duplicating the work.
Produce a board-ready reconciliation view that answers a risk committee question about cross-border compliance posture without a manual assembly run.
Handle genuine framework conflicts where APRA and FCA require different control ownership models, with documented rationale that satisfies both supervisors.
Run an implementation sprint that closes an open regulatory gap within a defined cycle, with templates that carry the same structure across the next regulatory change.

The 12 modules

Module 1. The Cross-Border Compliance Gap: Why Four Artefacts Become the Default

Examines why multi-jurisdiction financial services teams default to parallel documentation runs rather than shared-artefact builds. Covers the structural difference between APRA's prudential standards approach, ASIC's conduct-and-disclosure model, FCA's principle-based SYSC framework, and MAS's technology and operational risk circulars. Maps where the documentation cycles diverge and where they share underlying control intent. Establishes the cost of the gap in review hours and board-pack accuracy.

Module 2. Reading the Overlap: What APRA CPS 220, FCA SYSC, and MAS TRM Actually Share

Works through the specific control categories that appear across APRA CPS 220 (risk management framework), FCA SYSC 4 and 7 (governance and operational risk), and MAS TRM (technology risk management). Identifies the shared underlying intent behind surface-level language differences. Builds a worked example of a single operational risk control that satisfies all three frameworks' evidence standards with one artefact set rather than three, using the actual attestation language each regulator expects.

Module 3. The Multi-Jurisdiction Control Matrix: Structure and Field Definitions

Introduces the matrix structure used throughout the course: a single source-of-truth document that maps each control to its regulatory citations across APRA, ASIC, FCA, and MAS, its evidence artefact, its owner, its attestation cadence, and its conflict flag. Covers field definitions, the difference between a shared artefact and a regulatory-specific addendum, and how to set the matrix up so it drives the documentation build rather than summarising it after the fact.

Module 4. APRA CPS 234 and Cyber Resilience: Building Evidence That Reads in London Too

APRA CPS 234 (information security) requires specific board-level attestation and third-party notification obligations that differ from FCA SYSC 13 and MAS TRM Chapter 7. This module maps the three frameworks onto a single cyber-resilience control set, identifies the addendum language needed to satisfy each regulator's specific framing, and produces a board-attestation template that answers an APRA information request without rebuilding for FCA. Includes the notification threshold differences that trip up cross-border teams.

Module 5. ASIC Obligations in a Cross-Border Book: RG 255 and Market Integrity

ASIC RG 255 (derivative transaction reporting) and ASIC market integrity rules create obligations that often run in parallel with FCA EMIR and MAS OTC derivative reporting but with different field requirements and reporting timelines. This module builds the mapping between the three reporting frameworks, identifies the shared transaction fields and the regulator-specific additions, and produces a reconciliation template that a middle-office team can use to close a reporting gap without three separate remediation streams.

Module 6. SMCR and Senior Manager Accountability: Mapping to APRA and MAS Equivalents

FCA SMCR requires individual accountability statements and responsibility maps that have direct equivalents in APRA's accountable persons regime (CPS 510) and MAS MAS 626 (senior management accountability). This module maps the three accountability frameworks, identifies where the role-level obligations align and where they diverge, and produces an accountability matrix that satisfies all three regimes from a single ownership document. Covers the specific artefacts a firm needs when a senior manager holds responsibilities under all three frameworks simultaneously.

Module 7. Handling Genuine Conflicts: Where APRA and FCA Cannot Be Reconciled

Some framework conflicts are real: APRA's residency and data-localisation expectations under CPS 231 and CPS 234 can conflict directly with FCA data-sharing and outsourcing obligations under SYSC 8. This module covers the structured approach to conflict documentation: how to identify a genuine conflict, how to record the regulatory rationale for the resolution chosen, and how to produce the documented-exception artefact that satisfies each regulator's examination team that the conflict was handled deliberately rather than overlooked.

Module 8. Board Pack Preparation: Producing a Reconciled Cross-Border Compliance View

Risk committees at cross-border firms regularly ask for a single compliance posture view across all material jurisdictions. This module covers how to produce that view from the multi-jurisdiction matrix built in earlier modules: what format a board pack needs, how to summarise open gaps without creating a regulatory admission, how to present the conflict-resolution decisions, and how to handle the question of which regulator's standard sets the floor when the frameworks differ. Includes a worked board-pack template.

Module 9. Regulatory Change Management: Updating the Matrix Without Starting Over

APRA, ASIC, FCA, and MAS all issue prudential standards updates, consultation papers, and near-final rules on different cadences. This module covers how to maintain a multi-jurisdiction matrix through a regulatory change cycle: how to assess whether a new APRA consultation changes the shared artefact or only the APRA-specific addendum, how to triage a MAS update against the existing matrix rather than rebuilding, and how to produce the impact-assessment document that tells the risk committee what changed and what did not.

Module 10. Third-Party and Outsourcing Obligations Across Four Regulators

Outsourcing and third-party risk management requirements are among the most divergent across APRA CPS 231, FCA SYSC 8, and MAS TRM Chapter 5. Each regulator requires different due-diligence documentation, different notification thresholds, and different contractual clauses. This module builds the cross-regulator outsourcing control matrix, identifies the clauses that satisfy all three frameworks and the addenda that are regulator-specific, and produces the third-party oversight schedule a compliance team needs to run without separate workstreams for each jurisdiction.

Module 11. Implementation Sprint: Closing an Open Gap in a Defined Cycle

Works through a concrete scenario: a gap flagged by the risk committee that needs a credible remediation plan within the current review cycle. Covers how to scope the gap against the multi-jurisdiction matrix, assign ownership and artefact deliverables, set a realistic timeline across different regulatory comment periods, and produce the closure memo that satisfies each regulator's evidence standard. Uses a worked example based on a CPS 234 and FCA SYSC 13 joint gap.

Module 12. Repeatable Process: Building the Skill That Transfers to the Next Regulatory Cycle

Covers how to make the multi-jurisdiction mapping approach repeatable so it transfers to the next regulatory change rather than being rebuilt each time. Addresses the documentation standards that keep the matrix auditable, the ownership model that maintains it between change cycles, and the review cadence that catches drift before it becomes a gap. Produces a process document a new team member can pick up without losing the accumulated mapping work.

How this addresses your situation

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

APRA prudential standards update just landed and the risk committee wants to know whether it changes the FCA documentation too

Mid-year regulatory examination from ASIC requires an artefact set that also needs to satisfy an FCA SYSC 4 review happening the same quarter

A new outsourcing arrangement needs sign-off from APRA, FCA, and MAS and nobody has a cross-regulator due-diligence template

Board pack is due in two weeks and the cross-border compliance posture summary is currently three separate spreadsheets with different control ownership

What you get with this course

Twelve written modules covering the full cross-jurisdictional regulatory mapping build
Multi-jurisdiction control matrix template (APRA, ASIC, FCA, MAS) with field definitions and worked examples
Board-pack reconciliation template and cross-border compliance posture summary format
Outsourcing and third-party risk cross-regulator clause matrix
Conflict-resolution documentation template for genuine framework conflicts
Hand-built implementation playbook tailored to your specific regulatory mix, delivered alongside course access

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

Course access and the hand-built implementation playbook are both provisioned within 24 hours of purchase.

Before and after

Before

Four separate documentation runs for four regulators, manual board-pack assembly, open reconciliation gaps that land late in the review cycle, and no structured approach to handling the framework conflicts that nobody owns.

After

One multi-jurisdiction matrix that drives the documentation build, a board-ready compliance posture view that comes from the matrix rather than from a spreadsheet assembly, and a repeatable process for the next regulatory change that does not require starting over.

What happens if you do not address this

Multi-regulator gaps that are not reconciled tend to surface at the worst possible time: during an examination, in a board-pack commentary, or in a third-party due-diligence request. The cost is not just the remediation hours. It is the credibility of the compliance function in front of a risk committee that asked for a reconciled view and received four separate answers.

Who it is for

A compliance, risk, legal, or operations professional at a global financial services firm who holds responsibility for regulatory implementation across more than one jurisdiction. They know the individual frameworks. The gap is the cross-framework joins: which artefacts satisfy multiple regulators simultaneously, how to sequence the documentation build, and how to evidence a single control position to four different supervisory audiences without four separate documentation runs.

Who this is NOT for. Someone looking for a summary of what each regulation says. This course assumes you can read the frameworks. It teaches the implementation skill: how to build the matrix, own the artefacts, and close the reconciliation gap under real time pressure.

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. Each module is designed to be completed in one focused session. Most professionals work through the course over two to three weeks alongside their regular responsibilities.

Why $199 is the right number

Regulatory consultancies charge project fees for cross-border gap assessments that typically start at $20,000 and produce a report rather than a transferable skill. Internal training programmes cover individual frameworks but rarely address the cross-framework joins where the implementation hours actually go. This course teaches the mapping methodology directly so the skill stays with you after the course ends.

FAQ

Do I need to know all four regulatory frameworks before starting?

You need working familiarity with at least two of the four. The course does not teach what each regulation says; it teaches how to build the joins between them. If you are comfortable with APRA and FCA, you will be able to follow the ASIC and MAS modules by analogy.

Is the implementation playbook the same for everyone?

No. The playbook is hand-built for your specific regulatory mix and role context after purchase. It takes the course methodology and applies it to the jurisdiction combination that matters most to your current work.

How current are the framework references?

The module content covers the stable structural elements of each framework that do not change frequently. The matrix methodology is designed to absorb regulatory updates without requiring the whole approach to be rebuilt. The maintenance module covers how to handle a framework update within the existing matrix.

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.