著全球跨境金流益趨複雜與金融科技的更迭，國際組織、各國主管機關及我國主管機關，均積極推動由「規則導向」轉向「風險基礎方法」的監理模式。其方法之核心，在於期許金融機構跳脫傳統規則導向監理下之僵化思維，依據個案之實質風險程度採取相稱的差異化管理。然而，銀行實務為應對龐大客戶並維持內部治理一致性，通常將其轉化為指標化內部評估模型 。此舉導致制度在運作中產生異化，逐漸演變成極度依賴固定行業分類、模型權重及標準化流程的「類別化高風險認定」，使防制機制陷入僵化 。
本研究聚焦於探討風險基礎方法於實務中走向標準化的成因與限制 。研究發現，現行客戶風險評估過度依賴行業因子作為前端分流起點，掩蓋了個別客戶的營運脈絡與風險差異，使個案流於形式化的標籤確認 。更深層成因在於外部監理裁罰壓力下，銀行基於可稽核性誘因建構完全可追溯的模型，限縮了法遵人員的專業裁量空間 ；加上內部責任配置不對等，低估風險將面臨重大的法律與聲譽究責 ，「寧嚴勿鬆」的防禦性決策遂成為金融機構的理性選擇。
基於上述實務困境，本研究提出具體建議：首先，應重整行業因子之輔助定位，將其界定為風險提示之「起點」而非「終點」；其次，優化內部流程設計，建構具備制度化與可稽核性的「專業裁量覆核機制」，容許法遵人員在合理說明理由下動態修正。最後，主管機關宜深化對「合理判斷過程」之評價，建立以程序正當性為核心的歸責標準，消弭金融機構的防禦性恐懼，引導銀行從形式合規回歸實質的風險抵減，在維護金融體系安全與維持服務可近性之間取得動態平衡。

As global cross-border financial flows become more complex and financial technology continues to evolve, regulatory bodies worldwide are actively shifting from a "rule-based" model to a "risk-based approach" (RBA). The core of this approach is to encourage financial institutions to move beyond the rigid mindset of rule-based supervision and adopt proportionate and differentiated measures based on the actual risk level of individual cases. However, to handle massive customer volumes and maintain internal governance consistency, banks usually convert this approach into standardized internal assessment models. This conversion causes the system to deviate from its original purpose, gradually turning into a "categorical high-risk assessment" that relies heavily on fixed sector classifications, model weights, and standardized procedures, ultimately causing the anti-money laundering mechanism to become rigid.
This study focuses on exploring the causes and limitations of the risk-based approach becoming standardized in bank operations. The findings show that current customer risk assessments rely too heavily on sector risk factors as the starting point for initial sorting. This practice hides the actual business context and individual risk differences of each customer, reducing the assessment to a formalistic exercise of labeling. The deeper cause lies in the pressure of external regulatory penalties, which drives banks to build fully traceable models based on auditability incentives, thereby limiting the professional judgment of compliance personnel. Furthermore, due to the imbalance in internal responsibility, underestimating risk leads to severe legal and reputational accountability. As a result, a defensive "rather strict than loose" strategy becomes the rational choice for financial institutions.
Based on these practical difficulties, this study proposes several concrete recommendations: First, the auxiliary role of sector risk factors should be repositioned, clearly defining them as the "starting point" rather than the "final conclusion" of risk assessment. Second, banks should optimize their internal workflows to establish an auditable mechanism for professional judgment, allowing compliance officers to dynamically adjust model results under reasonable explanations. Finally, regulatory authorities should place greater value on the "reasonable evaluation process" and establish accountability standards centered on procedural justice. This shift will help remove defensive fear within financial institutions and guide banks away from purely formalistic compliance toward substantive risk mitigation, achieving a dynamic balance between maintaining financial security and preserving access to financial services.

中華民國銀行商業同業公會全國聯合會（2019a）。銀行評估洗錢及資恐風險及訂定相關防制計畫指引。https://www.aml-ba.org.tw/regulations.php?sn=27
中華民國銀行商業同業公會全國聯合會（2019b）。銀行防制洗錢及打擊資恐注意事項範本。https://www.aml-ba.org.tw/regulations.php?sn=27
中華民國銀行商業同業公會全國聯合會（2026）。銀行與虛擬通貨平台及交易業務事業建立業務關係及交易監控自律規範。https://www.ba.org.tw/memberStandard/DownloadFile?intId=249350&downName=.pdf
金管會（2021a）。金融機構防制洗錢辦法。民國110年12月14日修正。https://law.fsc.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL002155
金管會（2021b）。銀行業及其他經金融監督管理委員會指定之金融機構防制洗錢及打擊資恐內部控制與稽核制度實施辦法。民國 110 年 12 月 14 日修正。https://law.fsc.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL002562
金管會（2021c）。銀行防制洗錢及打擊資恐注意事項範本及相關規定問答集—金融機構篇。https://www.fsc.gov.tw/userfiles/file/銀行防制洗錢及打擊資恐注意事項範本及相關規定問答集─金融機構篇.pdf
金管會（2024）。提供虛擬資產服務之事業或人員洗錢防制登記辦法。民國 113 年 11 月 26 日發布。https://law.fsc.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL004000
金管會（2025）。金融監督管理委員會對臺灣銀行防制洗錢缺失裁罰案新聞稿。https://www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=96&parentpath=0,2&mcustomize=news_view.jsp&dataserno=202503110001&toolsflag=Y&dtable=News
法務部（2024）。洗錢防制法。民國113年07月31日修正。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=G0380131
法務部調查局（2024）。法務部調查局偵辦ACE王牌交易所林某等虛擬貨幣投資詐騙集團非法吸金。法務部。https://www.mjib.gov.tw/news/Details/1/965
法務部（2018）。資恐防制法。民國107年11月07日修正。https://mojlaw.moj.gov.tw/lawcontent.aspx?lsid=fl081466
張嘉文（2020）。洗錢防制及打擊資恐監理規範之實務探討：以銀行業為中心［未出版之碩士論文］。中原大學。
蔣念祖（2020）。從洗錢防制風險治理觀點論金融機構最適之監理制度：以銀行、保險、證券產業為基礎［未出版之博士論文］。國立政治大學。
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS)(2020). Sound management of risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism. Bank for International Settlements. https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d505.pdf (Visited on 10/03/2026)
Black, J. (2008). Forms and paradoxes of principles-based regulation. Capital Markets Law Journal, 3(4), 425–457. https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmn026
European Banking Authority (2024). Guidelines amending Guidelines EBA/2021/02 on customer due diligence and the factors credit and financial institutions should consider when assessing the money laundering and terrorist financing risk associated with individual business relationships and occasional transactions (EBA/GL/2024/01).
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-01/a3e89f4f-fbf3-4bd6-9e07-35f3243555b3/Final%20Amending%20%20Guidelines%20on%20MLTF%20Risk%20Factors.pdf (Visited on 11/03/2026)
Ferwerda, J., & Kleemans, E. R. (2019). Estimating money laundering risks: An application to business sectors in the Netherlands. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 25(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-018-9391-4
Financial Action Task Force (2014). Guidance for a risk-based approach: The banking sector. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Risk-based-approach-banking-sector.html (Visited on 14/03/2026)
Financial Action Task Force (2016). Guidance on correspondent banking services. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Correspondent-banking-services.html (Visited on 14/03/2026)
Financial Action Task Force (2025). International standards on combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism & proliferation: The FATF recommendations.
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Fatf-recommendations.html (Visited on 14/03/2026)
Financial Conduct Authority (2024). FCA fines Starling Bank Ltd £28,959,426 for financial crime failings. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-starling-bank-failings-financial-crime-systems-and-controls (Visited on 14/05/2026)
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (2026). BSA/AML examination manual. https://bsaaml.ffiec.gov/manual (Visited on 14/03/2026)
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)(2019). Federal bank regulatory agencies and FinCEN improve transparency of risk-focused BSA/AML supervision [Press release]. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/federal-bank-regulatory-agencies-and-fincen-improve-transparency-risk-focused (Visited on 14/05/2026)
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (2024). FinCEN assesses record $1.3 billion penalty against TD Bank. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-assesses-record-13-billion-penalty-against-td-bank (Visited on 14/03/2026)
Financial Services Agency (2026). Guidelines for anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism. https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/news/2026/20260331/01.pdf (Visited on 10/05/2026)
His Majesty's Treasury (2025). National risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing 2025. HM Treasury. UK Government.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-risk-assessment-of-money-laundering-and-terrorist-financing-2025 (Visited on 14/03/2026)
Jamil, A. H., Mohd-Sanusi, Z., Mat-Isa, Y., & Yaacob, N. M. (2023). Money laundering risk judgement by compliance officers at financial institutions in Malaysia: The effects of customer risk determinants and regulatory enforcement. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 26(3), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-01-2022-0004
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Naheem, M. A. (2019). Anti-money laundering/trade-based money laundering risk assessment strategies – action or re-action focused? Journal of Money Laundering Control, 22(4), 721–733.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-01-2016-0006
Ogbeide, H., Thomson, M. E., Gonul, M. S., Onkal, D., Bhowmick, S., & Bello, A. U. (2024). Rethinking experts’ perceptions in money laundering risk assessment. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 31(4), 753–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-024-09586-w
Wolfsberg Group (2025). Statement on the risk-based approach. https://wolfsberg-group.org/resources/203 (Visited on 14/03/2026)