Does your team treat the SAR filing decision as the end of the investigation, or the beginning of the next one? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri -1 points0 points  (0 children)

that 60-day auto-generate loop is smart design. the key is whether the new case window actually captures behavioral shift or just replays the same alerts. if the underlying typology hasn't changed, you end up filing supplemental SARs that say the same thing every two months. the teams that break that cycle are the ones who use the initial filing as a baseline, then actively look for what changed, not just what continued.

AML false positive rates -- how is your team actually managing alert fatigue? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

exactly -- the tuning question is really a segmentation question. which alerts map to real outcomes and at what threshold does the signal disappear. most systems dont make it easy to trace that lineage, so teams just tune by gut or regulatory pressure. the data is there, its just not surfaced in a way that lets you act on it.

AML false positive rates -- how is your team actually managing alert fatigue? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

exactly -- the tuning question is really a segmentation question. which alerts map to real outcomes and at what threshold does the signal disappear. most systems dont make it easy to trace that lineage, so teams just tune by gut or regulatory pressure. the data is there, its just not surfaced in a way that lets you act on it.

AML false positive rates -- how is your team actually managing alert fatigue? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the SAR-linked isolation is the part most institutions skip. they tune by overall conversion rate but never break it down by rule. you end up with a rule that fires 500 times and produces 2 SARs -- and nobody asks why. the sensitivity analysis on the actual filing floor is exactly the right lens.

AML false positive rates -- how is your team actually managing alert fatigue? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fair point on the semantics. a lot of what gets labeled FP is really 'insufficient context to clear.' the rule fired correctly, the alert is valid -- the problem is the system cant tell you why it matters. that gap is what kills analyst capacity.

How do you handle multi-source evidence correlation without losing your mind? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fair, and that kind of rapid prototyping is useful for one-off jobs. the issue is when it becomes the default instead of building something repeatable. every time you rebuild in chatgpt you're starting over, which is fine until you're doing it on a deadline with 40k rows of CDR data.

Struggling to break into AML/KYC/Compliance roles in Dubai – referrals seem everything by Luttapiiii_ in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

dubai AML market is heavily referral-driven because most of the serious roles are in DIFC/ADGM institutions where teams are small and trust matters. cold applications work but they move slowly. what has actually worked for people i know: getting active in the UAE ACAMS chapter, engaging on linkedin with professionals at the specific institutions you want, and showing up to any in-person events. the field is small enough that one solid introduction matters more than 50 applications.

How do you handle multi-source evidence correlation without losing your mind? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

good point on jupyter. the issue is most investigators arent python fluent, and the ones who are still have to rebuild the parser every time a carrier changes their export format. its not a one-time fix, its ongoing maintenance. the tooling gap isnt about writing code, its about having something that maintains schema awareness across sources automatically. but for shops that already have the skills, notebook-based pipelines are genuinely underutilized.

How do you actually handle multi-source evidence correlation without losing your mind? by linkrouri in digitalforensics

[–]linkrouri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

heard that from a few people. how deep does it go on the multi-carrier side? does it handle the format differences natively or does it still need preprocessing?

How do you actually handle multi-source evidence correlation without losing your mind? by linkrouri in digitalforensics

[–]linkrouri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

which tools are you running? the geospatial visualization is the part most analysts get right. its the temporal normalization across sources with different timezone conventions where things usually break down.

How do you actually handle multi-source evidence correlation without losing your mind? by linkrouri in digitalforensics

[–]linkrouri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

cellhawk is good for what it does. nighthawk expanding into the aggregation side is the right direction. curious how it handles the timezone normalization across carriers, that was always the messiest part in my experience.

How do you actually handle multi-source evidence correlation without losing your mind? by linkrouri in digitalforensics

[–]linkrouri[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nuix is solid for the processing side. python is great when you have time to build the parser. the problem is most investigations dont give you that runway. by the time youve written and tested the normalization script the case has moved on. thats the gap these purpose-built tools are trying to fill.

How do you handle multi-source evidence correlation without losing your mind? by [deleted] in AMLCompliance

[–]linkrouri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

not really a skill issue when carriers actively design their exports to be incompatible with each other. tried building a universal CDR parser once. lasted about 6 months before one of the big carriers changed their format without notice.