Skip to main content

Regulatory Reporting Assessment

Evaluate your regulatory reporting processes

15 questions • 12-14 min

This assessment evaluates your organisation's regulatory reporting framework, including suspicious activity reporting, timeliness and accuracy of filings, supporting documentation, and understanding of regulatory requirements. It provides insights into your current maturity level and identifies key areas for enhancement.

Instructions

  • Answer all questions honestly based on your organisation's current practices
  • Select the option that most closely matches your situation
  • Complete all sections to receive a comprehensive evaluation
  • Your answers are confidential and not stored on our servers

About This Self-Assessment

This tool helps institutions evaluate their regulatory reporting framework based on common regulatory expectations and industry best practices (e.g., FATF, local FIU requirements). It covers key areas like suspicious activity reporting (SAR/STR), timeliness and accuracy, process documentation, and regulatory compliance.

Disclaimer: This is a self-assessment tool for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice. Your responses are processed locally in your browser and are not stored or transmitted. For a comprehensive review, consult with compliance experts or request a personalised demo of iTrack.

Section 1 of 4Suspicious Activity Reporting
0% Complete

Assessment Sections

Suspicious Activity Reporting

This section evaluates your organisation's processes for identifying, investigating, and filing suspicious activity reports.

How does your organisation identify potentially suspicious activities that may require SAR filing?

Integrated approach with multiple detection points and risk-based triggers
Comprehensive system with automated alerts, employee referrals, and integration with KYC/CDD processes
Structured approach with defined detection mechanisms
Well-defined process with some automated alerts and manual referrals
Limited detection mechanisms with minimal integration
Basic processes relying primarily on manual identification
Reactive identification with no structured process
Ad-hoc approach with inconsistent identification criteria

What is your organisation's approach to investigating potentially suspicious activities?

Comprehensive investigation protocol with specialised resources
Detailed investigation procedures with dedicated specialists and appropriate tools
Structured investigation protocol
Defined investigation process with documented steps and review mechanisms
Basic investigation approach with limited guidance
Simple investigation process with minimal documentation or standardisation
Inconsistent or minimal investigation approach
Lack of formal process or inadequate investigation depth

How is the decision to file a SAR made within your organisation?

Structured decision process with appropriate escalation and oversight
Clear decision-making framework with multiple levels of review and compliance oversight
Defined decision process with some oversight
Established process with designated approval authorities
Limited guidance on decision-making
Basic decision framework with minimal consistency
Inconsistent or ad-hoc decision process
Lack of clear criteria or proper authority for filing decisions

How does your organisation ensure the quality and completeness of SAR narratives?

Consider review processes, templates, and quality control measures.

Comprehensive quality controls with specialised review
Robust templates, multiple reviews, and ongoing quality improvement
Structured review process with templates
Standard templates and defined review process for narratives
Basic templates with limited review
Simple templates with minimal quality control
Minimal guidance on narrative preparation
No standard templates or inadequate review process
Section 1 of 4