Triage transaction-monitoring alerts on judgment rather than amount, investigate to a sound disposition, and write a clear, fact-based, defensible SAR that a regulator and the FIU can actually act on.
Built for 2026, when financial intelligence units judge institutions by the quality and actionability of their suspicious-activity reports, not the volume cleared. This is the third course on the Financial Crime / Compliance Track and builds on Sanctions & PEP Screening: across four phases — Engage with the gap between an empty queue and a real disposition, Share the triage and narrative models, Practise on realistic alerts (the Halvorsen pass-through, the Duneford structuring run, the auto-tuned model, the rejected and re-filed SAR), then Perform by drafting a SAR a regulator could act on — learners build the core money-laundering investigation skill that turns a flagged transaction into evidence the authorities can use.
Hook into why a cleared queue is not a controlled risk, and surface where your own alert-triage and SAR habits sit today.
Learn the models: the triage decision logic, the red-flag typologies a monitoring analyst reasons about, and the anatomy of a SAR narrative an FIU can act on.
Apply the judgment with feedback across the whole topic: triage a live alert, sequence a defensible investigation, force the structuring call, oversee a drifting model, and draft a SAR narrative an FIU could act on.
Prove the judgment: pass the monitoring-and-SAR knowledge gate, then produce the applied artefact — a defensible SAR narrative the MLRO could file — and attest to the escalation and tipping-off rules with a concrete habit.
Book a demo and we'll run "Transaction Monitoring & SAR Writing: From Alert to Defensible Disposition" end to end on your people — the AI asks, your people think — or point the Forge at your own material instead (a pre-pilot capability preview).