Synthetic data in AML is an innovation not yet ready to stand on its own
Synthetic and hybrid data have become popular buzzwords in the world of artificial intelligence and machine learning. In anti-money laundering (AML) detection, where data sensitivity and privacy restrictions create major barriers to model development, synthetic data sounds like a perfect solution. At first glance, its benefits are obvious–it’s privacy‑safe, endlessly scalable, and easily shared. But inside compliance and regulatory circles, enthusiasm is tempered by skepticism. Many risk leaders and regulators view synthetic data as a promising supplement—not a substitute—for the messy, complex realities of financial crime data.
How synthetic data works—and why it’s appealing
Synthetic data is artificially generated rather than drawn from real transactions. Systems such as AMLNet and other academic frameworks use typology‑based algorithms to create data that looks statistically similar to authentic customer or transaction records. Hybrid approaches go a step further, blending synthetic and real data to enhance realism without exposing sensitive information.
The appeal is obvious: Institutions can test models, simulate emerging laundering typologies, and share datasets across borders—all while protecting client confidentiality. In theory, synthetic data could accelerate innovation and reduce dependence on tightly controlled production data.
Why pushback is strong – and sensible
Despite the enthusiasm, the compliance community has serious reservations about synthetic data’s readiness for core AML functions. The most common objections fall into five categories:
1. Validation risk — Synthetic data can only replicate patterns the generator already knows. That makes it ill‑suited for uncovering novel or evolving laundering schemes.
2. Auditability and explainability — Regulators require firms to demonstrate how data are produced, verified, and linked to real‑world typologies. Synthetic data often lacks the transparent provenance that audit teams demand.
3. Bias and overfitting — Synthetic datasets can reinforce existing model biases or produce false correlations that weaken performance in production.
4. Regulatory uncertainty — No major regulator has yet endorsed synthetic data as acceptable for AML model validation or regulatory reporting.
5. Governance complexity — Synthetic data introduces new lifecycle risks: data generation, validation, and deprecation all require documented oversight.
Industry reality: Experimentation, not adoption
Across financial services, synthetic data is being tested—but rarely trusted for production AML systems. A handful of Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions have used synthetic or hybrid data for sandbox testing, scenario modeling, or staff training. But most compliance leaders continue to rely on anonymized or masked production data for true model tuning.
Even advanced RegTech providers treat synthetic data as experimental. While it enables innovation and internal R&D, it cannot yet replace real data for regulatory audits, suspicious activity analysis, or validation of machine learning models under OCC model risk management guidance or EBA guidance on the use of advanced analytics in AML/CTF
Governance first: What responsible exploration looks like in synthetic data for AML
For firms exploring synthetic or hybrid data, the right approach is disciplined experimentation—not wholesale adoption. Prudent governance steps include:
• Clearly labeling synthetic datasets and restricting their use to sandbox environments.
• Validating all model results against hold‑out real data before deployment.
• Documenting dataset creation logic, parameter settings, and limitations.
• Involving model risk management and internal audit early.
• Communicating with regulators about methodology and intent.
These controls mirror traditional model risk management expectations—because synthetic data introduces model risk of its own.
The regulatory view: Cautious curiosity
Supervisors such as FinCEN, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) acknowledge the potential of synthetic data, particularly for privacy protection and cross‑institutional testing. Yet they emphasize that real‑world validation remains essential. The EU’s draft AI Act and the OCC’s model risk management guidance both point toward the same principle: Transparency and accountability outweigh technical novelty.
Until regulators issue explicit frameworks, synthetic data will remain an optional enhancement, not a compliance foundation.
Synthetic data in AML: A tool but not a replacement
Synthetic and hybrid data may be tempting tools—but they are not panaceas. In AML model development, realism and traceability matter as much as innovation. Institutions that pursue synthetic data responsibly—through limited pilots, rigorous governance, and clear communication—can explore its benefits without undermining trust. The future may belong to hybrid approaches, but for now, authentic data and sound risk management remain the gold standard.
RegTechONE, AML Partners’ no-code compliance platform, was designed to help institutions orchestrate data, workflow, and AI governance with complete transparency. Learn how its architecture supports risk-based oversight and trusted automation
