IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mib/wpaper/444.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Bankers "Crying Wolf"? The Risk-Based Approach to Money-Laundering Regulation and its Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Lucia Dalla Pellegrina
  • Giorgio Di Maio
  • Donato Masciandaro
  • Margherita Saraceno

Abstract

Excessive and useless reporting, called the "crying wolf effect", is a crucial shortcoming that any anti-money laundering (AML) design aims to address. For this reason, in recent years, AML policies in both the US and Europe have switched from a rule-based approach to a riskbased approach. This study theoretically and empirically investigates whether the risk-based approach delivers the expected results. The theoretical model shows that a trade-off can emerge between accuracy – fewer type-I and type-II errors – and deterrence. The empirical analysis, conducted after the risk-based approach was introduced in Italy, confirms such a trade-off. More specifically, deterrence is maximized, while accuracy is sacrificed. In this respect, the data suggest that Italian bankers are likely to “cry wolf”.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Giorgio Di Maio & Donato Masciandaro & Margherita Saraceno, 2020. "Are Bankers "Crying Wolf"? The Risk-Based Approach to Money-Laundering Regulation and its Effects," Working Papers 444, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2021.
    • Handle: RePEc:mib:wpaper:444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.dems.unimib.it/repec/pdf/mibwpaper444.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Black, Julia & Baldwin, Robert, 2010. "Really responsive risk-based regulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27632, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Lucia dalla Pellegrina & Giorgio Di Maio & Donato Masciandaro & Margherita Saraceno, 2020. "Organized crime, suspicious transaction reporting and anti-money laundering regulation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(12), pages 1761-1775, December.
    3. Demougin, Dominique & Fluet, Claude, 2006. "Preponderance of evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 963-976, May.
    4. Dionysios S. Demetis, 2010. "Technology and Anti-Money Laundering," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13569.
    5. Raffaella Barone & Donato Masciandaro, 2019. "Cryptocurrency or usury? Crime and alternative money laundering techniques," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 233-254, April.
    6. Henrik Lando, 2002. "When is the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Optimal?," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 27(4), pages 602-608, October.
    7. Raj Chetty, 2009. "Sufficient Statistics for Welfare Analysis: A Bridge Between Structural and Reduced-Form Methods," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 451-488, May.
    8. Dalla Pellegrina Lucia & Masciandaro Donato, 2009. "The Risk-Based Approach in the New European Anti-Money Laundering Legislation: A Law and Economics View," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 931-952, December.
    9. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2013. "Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 395-411, June.
    10. Mario Gara & Francesco Manaresi & Domenico J. Marchetti & Marco Marinucci, 2019. "The impact of anti-money laundering oversight on banks' suspicious transaction reporting: Evidence from Italy," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 491, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    11. Imanpour, Maryam & Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Westbrock, Bastian & Unger, Brigitte & Ferwerda, Joras, 2019. "A microeconomic foundation for optimal money laundering policies," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucia Pellegrina & Giorgio Maio & Donato Masciandaro & Margherita Saraceno, 2023. "Are Bankers “Crying Wolf”? Type I, Type II Errors and Deterrence in Anti-Money Laundering: The Italian Case," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(2), pages 587-615, July.
    2. Matteo Rizzolli, 2016. "Adjudication: Type-I and Type-II Errors," CERBE Working Papers wpC15, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    3. Murat C. Mungan & Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana, 2020. "Accuracy and Preferences for Legal Error," Working Papers 2020-09, CRESE.
    4. Shmuel Leshem & Geoffrey P. Miller, 2009. "All-or-Nothing versus Proportionate Damages," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 345-382, June.
    5. D. Bartolozzi & M. Gara & D.J. Marchetti & D. Masciandaro, 2019. "Designing The Anti-Money Laundering Supervisor: Theory, Institutions And Empirics," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 19126, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    6. Edwige Fain, 2017. "Standard of proof and volume of litigation: A comparative perspective," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2434-2445.
    7. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2005. "Deterrence versus Judicial Error: A Comparative View of Standards of Proof," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(2), pages 193-206, June.
    8. Mungan, Murat C. & Samuel, Andrew, 2019. "Mimicking, errors, and the optimal standard of proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 18-21.
    9. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet, 2008. "Rules of proof, courts, and incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 20-40, March.
    10. Mario Gara & Claudio Pauselli, 2020. "Looking at ‘Crying Wolf’ from a Different Perspective: An Attempt at Detecting Banks Under- and Over-Reporting of Suspicious Transactions," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 6(2), pages 299-324, July.
    11. Lando, Henrik & Mungan, Murat C., 2018. "The effect of type-1 error on deterrence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Bartolozzi, D. & Gara, M. & Marchetti, D.J. & Masciandaro, D., 2022. "Designing the anti-money laundering supervisor: The governance of the financial intelligence units," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1093-1109.
    13. Fluet, Claude & Mungan, Murat C., 2022. "Laws and norms with (un)observable actions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Besley, Timothy & Meads, Neil & Surico, Paolo, 2014. "The incidence of transaction taxes: Evidence from a stamp duty holiday," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 61-70.
    15. B. Unger & F. van Waarden, 2009. "Attempts to Dodge Drowning in Data: Rule- and Risk-Based Anti Money Laundering Policies Compared," Working Papers 09-19, Utrecht School of Economics.
    16. Martin Beraja, 2017. "Counterfactual Equivalence in Macroeconomics," 2017 Meeting Papers 1400, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    17. Jeanne, Olivier & Korinek, Anton, 2019. "Managing credit booms and busts: A Pigouvian taxation approach," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 2-17.
    18. Fernando Alvarez & Francesco Lippi & Roberto Robatto, 2019. "Cost of Inflation in Inventory Theoretical Models," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 32, pages 206-226, April.
    19. Régis Barnichon & Geert Mesters, 2020. "Optimal policy perturbations," Economics Working Papers 1716, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    20. Christopher Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2021. "Empirical properties of diversion ratios," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 693-726, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Anti-Money Laundering; Suspicious Transaction Reporting; Standard of evidence; Type-I error; Type-II error; Deterrence; Italy.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G2 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services
    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mib:wpaper:444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Matteo Pelagatti (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpmibit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.