SOFIAH NICHOLE SALIVIO
News Editor
Ripjar has published research showing that 58% of banks still rely on manual adverse media searches, even though 93% of financial services leaders view adverse media screening as critical.
The findings highlight a gap between how financial institutions rate adverse media screening and how widely they use it. While 77% of respondents said their organisations conduct adverse media screening, more than a fifth do not despite the importance attached to the practice.
The survey covered 400 senior decision-makers in financial services across the UK, US, France and Germany. All were C-suite or director-level executives with responsibility for, or significant authority over, customer screening, anti-money laundering or financial crime.
Manual processes remain common across the markets surveyed, with 58% of institutions still using manual internet searches as part of their adverse media process. In the US, that figure rises to 70%.
At the same time, 28% of financial institutions have not yet adopted continuous monitoring. Firms also want broader, more connected screening systems, with 96% of leaders saying they want adverse media screening combined with sanctions, politically exposed persons and watchlists on a single platform.
Spending plans suggest firms are trying to close that gap. According to the research, 90% of respondents plan to increase investment in adverse media screening over the next year.
The data also points to limits in current artificial intelligence adoption. While 79% of respondents reported investment in AI, only 28% said it had been fully deployed, leaving what Ripjar described as a 51% gap between investment and implementation.
Enforcement pressure
The findings come against a backdrop of rising anti-money laundering enforcement costs for the banking sector. Financial institutions have paid more than USD $69 billion in AML enforcement actions globally since the financial crisis.
Penalties against banks worldwide rose 522% year on year in 2024 to USD $3.65 billion. Recent enforcement cases show that adverse media signals often appear well before penalties are imposed.
Adverse media screening is used by banks and other financial institutions to identify negative news and public information linked to customers, counterparties or other entities. It forms part of broader controls designed to detect money laundering, sanctions breaches and reputational risk.
The study also found differences between markets, although the release highlighted the US figure most clearly. Covering four major financial markets, the results pointed to uneven readiness among institutions to move from fragmented manual checks to more systematic monitoring.
Matt Mills, Chief Executive Officer of Ripjar, said: “There’s a clear direction of travel in financial institutions when it comes to adverse media. With so many decision-makers viewing it as critical, adverse media screening is the first line of defence against crime and reputation risk. But what the research also reveals is that there are big differences across countries, and many are unprepared to run it in the way today’s market demands: systematically and at scale. Some of the best banks in the world are already doing this but it’s clear that the rest of the market needs to unify adverse media with sanctions, watchlists and PEPs screening if financial institutions are to adapt successfully to the new risk landscape.”
Founded in 2013, Ripjar says it serves more than 300 businesses, including large banks and corporations. The report was conducted on its behalf by Vitreous World.
The research focused on decision-makers responsible for screening and financial crime functions, meaning the responses reflect the views of senior executives rather than frontline compliance staff. That gives the findings weight as an indication of board-level priorities, but also underlines the disconnect between strategic intent and operational practice.
For banks under pressure to strengthen anti-money laundering controls, the figures suggest many still depend on labour-intensive processes in a risk area that leaders increasingly regard as essential. The combination of manual searches, incomplete continuous monitoring and partial AI deployment points to a market still in transition despite rising regulatory and financial pressure.