AI-Driven Compliance Automation for Financial Institutions in the United States - 29.2: AI-Based Case Management

29.2: AI-Based Case Management

In the early twenty-first century, compliance case management in United States financial institutions relied predominantly on manual workflows. When monitoring systems generated alerts for potential illicit activity—such as suspicious transactions or sanctions breaches—compliance analysts consolidated these alerts into paper-based or spreadsheet-driven cases. Each case dossier required investigators to retrieve data from multiple siloed systems, manually compile customer profiles, transaction histories, and regulatory reports, and document findings step by step (Al-Shabandar et al., 2019). This process was labour-intensive and prone to inconsistencies; high volumes of low-risk alerts led to backlogs, delayed investigations, and uneven documentation, undermining both efficiency and audit readiness (Katkov, 2022).

Around the mid-2010s, financial institutions began integrating rule-based engines within case management platforms. These systems automated the routing of alerts to appropriate teams—transaction monitoring flags to AML analysts, sanctions hits to screening units—but still lacked sophisticated prioritisation or intelligent support. Investigators often spent considerable time validating straightforward alerts before addressing truly high-risk cases, and false positives continued to overwhelm case queues (Al-Shabandar et al., 2019).

The advent of AI-based case management between 2020 and 2022 marked a pivotal shift. Modern platforms harness machine learning and natural language processing to automate routine tasks, prioritise cases by risk, and provide data-driven insights within a unified interface (Eddin et al., 2022). For instance, AI engines now ingest structured transaction logs, unstructured regulatory texts, emails, and customer-interaction transcripts, extracting salient features—such as anomaly scores or suspicious behaviour patterns—through anomaly detection algorithms (Bizarro et al., 2022). These features feed into risk-scoring models that compute a dynamic risk score for each case, enabling investigators to focus immediately on the highest-risk matters (Eddin et al., 2022).

A typical AI-based case management workflow comprises three phases. First, data consolidation pipelines perform entity resolution and compile comprehensive case files, drawing on both internal sources (transaction databases, KYC dossiers) and external intelligence (watchlists, adverse-media feeds). Next, feature-extraction modules apply machine learning techniques—embedding textual regulations via NLP and analysing time-series transaction data through neural networks—to generate predictive variables (Bizarro et al., 2022). Finally, a prioritisation engine assigns a risk score to each case and suggests next steps, such as requesting additional documentation or escalating to senior compliance officers when scores exceed defined thresholds (Eddin et al., 2022).

In practice, AI-based case management delivers measurable benefits. Compliance teams report up to a fifty-per-cent reduction in case investigation time, as routine data-gathering and document review are automated (Katkov, 2022). False positives decrease significantly—machine learning classifiers filter out low-risk alerts, ensuring that only meaningful cases enter the queue—thereby freeing analysts to concentrate on genuine threats (Katkov, 2022). Moreover, granular analytics dashboards provide real-time visibility into case volumes, risk trends, and investigator workloads, allowing managers to allocate resources proactively and maintain audit-ready records with consistent documentation standards (Al-Shabandar et al., 2019).

Despite its advantages, implementing AI-based case management poses challenges. Data quality and integration remain critical hurdles: legacy systems often store customer information in disparate formats, requiring extensive data-governance efforts before machine learning can yield reliable insights (Al-Shabandar et al., 2019). Explainability is another concern under U.S. regulations: compliance officers and auditors must understand how AI models derive risk scores, prompting the adoption of explainable AI techniques that log feature contributions and decision paths (Eddin et al., 2022). Finally, human-in-the-loop frameworks are essential to review edge-case outputs and mitigate algorithmic bias that might arise from historical training data (Bizarro et al., 2022).

Today, AI-based case management stands as a cornerstone of compliance automation in U.S. financial institutions. By integrating diverse data sources, automating repetitive tasks, and prioritising alerts through predictive analytics, these platforms have transformed case investigations from manual, sequential processes into dynamic, risk-driven workflows that enhance both efficiency and regulatory confidence (Katkov, 2022).

Glossary

1. case management
   Definition: The system and procedures used to organise, track, and resolve compliance alerts and investigations.
   Example: The bank upgraded its case management platform to handle AML alerts automatically.

2. risk scoring
   Definition: A numerical value computed by an AI model indicating the urgency or severity of a case.
   Example: Cases with a risk score above 0.85 were escalated for immediate review.

3. entity resolution
   Definition: The process of matching and consolidating information about an individual or organisation from multiple data sources.
   Example: The AI system used entity resolution to merge disparate customer records into a single profile.

4. natural language processing
   Definition: A branch of AI that enables machines to understand and analyse human language in text form.
   Example: NLP extracted key terms from regulatory documents to identify relevant compliance requirements.

5. anomaly detection
   Definition: Techniques used to identify patterns in data that deviate from expected behaviour.
   Example: Anomaly detection algorithms flagged an unusual spike in transaction volumes as potentially suspicious.

Questions

1. True or False: Early case management systems in U.S. banks fully automated risk prioritisation using AI models.

2. Multiple Choice: Which phase of AI-based case management involves generating predictive variables from raw data?
   A. Data consolidation
   B. Feature extraction
   C. Risk scoring
   D. Entity resolution

3. Fill in the blanks: AI systems reduce false positives by using machine learning to ______ out low-risk alerts from the investigation queue.

4. Matching: Match each component with its description.
   A. Data consolidation  1. Calculates a dynamic risk score for each case
   B. Feature extraction  2. Merges customer records from various systems
   C. Prioritisation engine 3. Applies NLP and neural networks to raw data

5. Short Question: Name one explainability requirement that U.S. financial institutions must address when deploying AI-based case management.

Answer Key

1. False

2. B

3. filter

4. A-2; B-3; C-1

5. Examples include: documenting feature contributions and decision paths for each risk score; providing audit-ready logs of AI outputs.

References
Al-Shabandar, R., Lightbody, G., Browne, F., Liu, J., Wang, H., & Zheng, H. (2019). The application of artificial intelligence in financial compliance management. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Financial Technology.

Bizarro, P., Nourafshan, M., & Silva, I. (2022). Graph-based feature extraction for AML alert triage. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(4), 712–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-02-2022-0012

Eddin, A. N., Bono, J., Aparício, D., Polido, D., Ascensão, J. T., Bizarro, P., & Ribeiro, P. (2022). Anti-money laundering alert optimization using machine learning with graphs. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.12345

Katkov, N. (2022). Accuracy, consistency, efficiency: How AI strengthens AML compliance. ABA Banking Journal, August 1, 2022.

Ramadurgam, K., & Chowdhury, S. (2025). Harnessing AI for smarter, stronger compliance. ABA Banking Journal, May 21, 2025.

1.