At banks and FinTech firms across Europe, there is widespread agreement that collaboration is essential to tackle financial crime.
Yet, despite the enthusiasm for intelligence sharing, institutions often hesitate when it comes to practical implementation. Concerns about legality, technology, internal approvals, and value frequently create roadblocks, leaving many unsure of how to begin, claims Salv.
One of the most common misconceptions is that sharing intelligence between regulated institutions breaches legal boundaries. This is understandable given the strict compliance environment shaped by GDPR, AML regulations, and national laws. However, suspicion-led intelligence sharing is not only permissible but actively encouraged by regulators. Article 75 of the EU’s Anti-Money Laundering Regulation provides clear parameters, while the UK’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 adopts a similar stance. The focus is on ensuring that exchanges are proportionate, auditable, and secure, sharing only targeted intelligence tied to specific cases rather than raw data or full account histories. Platforms such as Salv Bridge have already enabled thousands of compliant exchanges, proving that legal frameworks exist — the challenge lies in operational adoption.
The next hurdle is technological readiness. Some institutions fear their existing systems are outdated or incompatible with intelligence-sharing platforms. Yet purpose-built solutions like Salv Bridge have demonstrated that secure, mature, and audited technology is readily available. Since 2021, Bridge has facilitated over 56,000 intelligence exchanges across Europe. The real difficulty often lies in internal adoption: defining ownership, escalation paths, and reporting structures. Many institutions find success by starting small — focusing on specific use cases like fraud recovery or enhanced due diligence before scaling up.
Legal and compliance teams also frequently hesitate, citing privacy, liability, and reputational risk. However, these concerns often stem from unfamiliarity rather than fundamental barriers. Institutions that involve legal, compliance, and data protection professionals from the outset, rather than seeking final approval at the end, report smoother adoption. Shared policies, clear documentation, and real-world examples have helped many overcome internal resistance.
Finally, some question whether the benefits justify the effort. Evidence suggests otherwise. In one instance, intelligence shared between two banks led to the recovery of €50,000 that would otherwise have been lost to fraud. With UK rules mandating reimbursement for fraud victims, the financial incentive to act quickly has never been stronger. Beyond financial considerations, intelligence sharing protects reputations and safeguards customers.
Practical steps to drive adoption include engaging legal teams early, starting with small use cases, testing processes over several months, and embedding intelligence sharing as a core control within risk frameworks. The institutions already leading the way show that these misconceptions are surmountable — and that collaboration can deliver significant results in fighting financial crime.
Find more, on RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2025 FinTech Global
The post Tackling myths around financial crime intelligence sharing appeared first on FinTech Global.