Produktivitätsverlust durch manuelle SMR/SAR‑Bearbeitung

Definition

Guidance on SAR/SMR processes highlights that filing requires identity details, transaction amounts and dates, account numbers and a clear narrative explaining why the activity is suspicious, all captured in an electronic form to the relevant authority.[1][2][3] AUSTRAC requires SMRs to be submitted online through AUSTRAC Online, including comprehensive details of the suspicion.[8][5] Industry sources on SAR workflows emphasise that institutions must detect, investigate, document and file within statutory deadlines, and that many organisations still rely heavily on manual investigation and narrative drafting.[1][4] For a savings institution receiving thousands of AML alerts per year, if each potential SMR/SAR case requires on average 2–4 hours of analyst and manager time to gather data from disparate systems, assess suspicion, compile evidence and draft the narrative, this translates to a substantial capacity drain. Using a conservative example of 1,000 cases per year at 3 hours per case and a blended compliance cost of AUD 120/hour, this equates to around AUD 360,000 in labour. Where institutions handle 3,000–5,000 cases annually, the inefficient manual effort can easily exceed AUD 1 million per year. Automation (data aggregation, rule‑based triage, templates and guided narratives) can materially reduce handling times, converting this into a quantifiable capacity saving.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Savings institutions in Australia 🇦🇺 waste an estimated AUD 300,000–1,500,000 per year in avoidable labour on manual SMR/SAR investigations and filing. Automating alert triage, data pre‑population and narrative templates can reduce handling time per case by 30–60%, freeing compliance FTE for higher‑value work.

Affected Stakeholders

AML Analysts, Financial Crime Investigators, Compliance Officers, Operations Managers, IT / Data Teams (supporting AML tooling)

Related Business Risks