PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the anti‐money laundering (AML) legislation created by the Russian regulator for the financial institutions with the aim to test banks' compliance with it.Design/methodology/approachComparative analyses based on the data, collected from in‐depth study of the regulator's legislation for financial institutions (banks), as well as interviews with practitioners and observation of banking practices. For this purpose, the activities of several banks were analyzed.FindingsThe main concluding remark is that practice so far has shown the failure of the financial institutions to comply with the AML regulation. The question arises if there is unwillingness or inability of the financial institutions to comply with the regulator's rules.Research limitations/implicationsThe analysis of the practical implementation of the AML legislations in the financial institutions focuses on the legislative base for the regulated, behavioral patterns of the banks in the AML prevention activity, and the conflicts and debates that have emerged within the domestic AML regime.Practical implicationsThe paper tries to test the efficiency of the domestic preventive AML regime in Russia. The formal legislative compliance of the domestic regime with the international standards and norms does not characterize the efficiency of the existing regime. How the AML legislation is applied in practice is the main focus of the analysis.Originality/valueStudies of the peculiarities of the AML legislation implementation in different countries is one of the helpful tools to measure the efficiency of the global AML regime.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to analyze the domestic anti-money laundering (AML) regime in Russia in its prevention pillar with the aim to test its compliance with the international standards. Design/methodology/approach -The comparative approach is used to analyze domestic regulations with the focus on the four key elements of the prevention pillar of any AML regimecustomer due diligence, reporting, regulation and supervision and sanctions -for compliance with the main international documents regulating AML activities of the countries. Findings -The domestic AML regime in its prevention pillar which was created in 2002 has undergone significant changes. It is still far from complete and is being improved over time. No matter how the regime functions in reality, it mostly formally complies with the international AML requirements. Research limitations/implications -In using a comparative approach it has been necessary to see how compatible the created regime is with the international norms. Practical implications -The compliance is, however, conditional. The formal legislative compliance does not characterize the efficiency of the existing regime. How this legislation is applied in practice is the topic of the next step of our analysis. Originality/value -The efficiency of the global AML regime is a summarized efficiency of the domestic AML regimes. The most difficult part is to measure such efficiency. The more regimes are analyzed the more conditions are created for the assessment of the global regime efficiency.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract