Board-level regulatory intervention capability.

Stabilise Financial Crime & Regulatory Remediation Under Active Scrutiny

Board-level intervention for institutions facing regulatory pressure,

failed AML controls, or remediation programmes at risk.

When scrutiny intensifies, execution gaps become existential risks.

Section 166 reviews.

Consent orders.

AML control failures.

Remediation programmes drifting off track.

These moments demand clarity, governance and decisive architectural leadership — not more operational noise.

When Regulation Moves From Policy to Personal

Regulatory enforcement is no longer theoretical.

It is board-level.

It is reputational.

It is funded.

Capital allocation appears immediately when pressure appears.

Yet most institutions are structurally unprepared for the operational reality that follows regulatory action.

  • Fragmented remediation streams
  • Inconsistent AML control design
  • Disconnected governance reporting
  • Programme fatigue at executive level

The cost is not just financial.

It is credibility.

Strategic Architecture, Not Operational Firefighting

This engagement model is designed for institutions that require stabilisation at pace.

The mandate is clear:

1
Diagnose structural gaps across financial crime frameworks
2
Design executable remediation roadmaps
3
Establish governance and regulatory assurance structures
4
Deploy specialist execution teams where required
5
Exit once stability and control maturity are re-established

This is not a permanent operational role.

It is targeted intervention at the moment it matters most.

Typical Engagement Triggers

01

Post-Section 166 Review

02

Consent Order or Enforcement Action

03

AML Control Failure or Audit Escalation

04

Remediation Programme Off Track

If one of these events has occurred — or is anticipated — the window for decisive architecture is short.

Cross-Jurisdictional Awareness

Financial crime enforcement is universal in theme — but jurisdictionally specific in execution.

Experience spans:

  • UK regulatory scrutiny frameworks
  • US enforcement dynamics and remediation expectations
  • Governance alignment across multinational entities

Regulation does not disappear.

Institutions that treat it as episodic risk repeat cycles of remediation.

Engagement Structure

01

Initial Diagnostic

Rapid assessment of remediation maturity, governance coherence and control architecture.

02

Stabilisation Phase

Board-aligned roadmap with defined milestones and reporting cadence.

03

Execution Oversight

Deployment of specialist teams and assurance mechanisms.

04

Exit & Transition

Return to steady-state governance with embedded control resilience.

Clear entry.Clear mandate.Clear exit.

Confidential Discussion

If regulatory pressure has escalated — or risk indicators suggest escalation is imminent — a discreet conversation may prevent unnecessary cost and reputational damage.

Request a Confidential Discussion

All conversations handled in strict confidence.