I wrote " the newspaper formally known as The Times " and the system told me that "formally" was wrong.

Of course, anyone with an interest in or knowledge of history would know exactly why I wrote what I wrote and that it is correct.

Your company's financial crime risk and compliance function is staffed with people who, through no fault of their own, have no sense of context because they operate in an environment with no institutional memory and no experience in critical thinking. And who think the tech is correct - see https://lnkd.in/gzuc4VcR for how that went expensively wrong.

Compliance teams are actively trained to work within little boxes, reaching out of their box only to tick another box as it passes by. They are trained to do that because that is what regulators have told training companies is expected. That's needed but it's not enough.

All the while everyone says "don't just tick the boxes" while actively making that the only thing that happens.

Your staff, your company and society deserve better. The "why" should be as important as the "what" and the narrow confines of regulatory regimes and established training denies that - and actively militates against anyone asking "why not?"

It's time to make things better.

It's time to build that institutional memory; it's time to make people think; it's time to tick the box that says "we said we'd do better: and we have."

For people that know that "formerly" and "formally" are different depending on the context and for the record, "formerly" which is what the software said I should use, is grammatically correct but factually and historically wrong. Mine was correct in all respects. Another tech fAIl.

The article is in my blog here: https://www.countermoneylaundering.com