When applied correctly, SDD and RDD support compliance goals while improving commercial outcomes.

Globally and in Bermuda, these mechanisms are underpinned by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and Bermuda’s own AML/ATF Regulations. They are designed to reduce unnecessary friction by applying proportionate checks and controls. For instance, an overseas regulated financial institution or a majority-owned subsidiary of a publicly-traded company operating under an equivalent supervisory regime, or even a non-AML/ATF regulated Bermuda-based financial institution, presenting low residual risk, do not require the same level of documentation or verification as a higher-risk counterpart.

MAKING THE MOST OF PROPORTIONATE COMPLIANCE

Institutions that integrate SDD and RDD effectively benefit from faster client onboarding, improved customer experience, reduced administrative overhead and better allocation of compliance resources. Using pre-designed operational tools like eligibility and certification forms, the benefits of these measures include precise classification of counterparties, targeted documentation requirements and confidence in defensible compliance decisions that reflect actual risk exposure.

SDD and RDD are not shortcuts. They are intelligent applications of proportionality and due process. They enable institutions to maintain high compliance standards while freeing up capacity to focus on areas of greater financial crime and compliance risk. Their regular and justified use demonstrates programme maturity and effective internal risk assessment.

THE ROLE OF SDD AND RDD IN A RISK-BASED FRAMEWORK

Simplified Due Diligence (SDD) and Reduced Due Diligence (RDD) are legally permitted and regulatory-endorsed tools under Bermuda’s Proceeds of Crime (Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing) Regulations 2008. Both are designed to align the intensity of due diligence procedures with the actual risk posed by a client or transaction. Their use is governed by the principle of proportionality and rooted in risk assessment.

Under SDD, an institution utilises streamlined due diligence obligations where the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is proven to be low. Typically, SDD applies to customers such as:

Regulated financial institutions in jurisdictions with AML/ATF. regimes equivalent to Bermuda’s.
Listed public companies subject to disclosure requirements.
Government entities or public authorities.

For such clients, the institution obligations relating to beneficial ownership, verification documentation and transactional analysis radically differ − provided these decisions are recorded and justifiable. SDD does not eliminate all compliance obligations, as institutions are still expected to conduct monitoring and retain appropriate records.

Reduced Due Diligence (RDD) applies to situations where a full suite of CDD measures is not necessary but where SDD is not strictly appropriate. RDD may allow institutions to:

Verify identities post-onboarding within a defined timeline.
Request fewer documentary proofs.
Rely on shortened ownership charts or register extracts from official databases.

Both approaches contribute to significant operational improvements. In particular:

Reduced onboarding times: By focusing on risk indicators rather than rigid documentation lists, clients can be onboarded faster, with fewer administrative delays.
Less intrusive document requirements: Institutions can avoid asking for superfluous or burdensome documentation from low-risk customers, enhancing the overall client experience.
Improved resource allocation: Compliance teams can dedicate more time and attention to medium- and high-risk clients where due diligence truly matters.

The outcome is a leaner, smarter compliance function that can respond more rapidly to legitimate risks while reducing cost-to-serve for compliant, low-risk business.

WHY AREN’T WE USING THESE TOOLS?

Reduced complexity of a compliance programme does not equate to regulatory certainty. Rather, this often results in incomplete systems imagined to guarantee full coverage of any potential risk. Yet this pursuit of perceived certainty create commercial consequences: it reduces customer convenience, increases operational overhead and forfeits the opportunity to design programmes that are truly aligned with risk. In other words, the cost of playing it ‘too safe’ can far exceed the benefit.

There is a common perception that using SDD or RDD introduces enforcement risk − but that misreads the regulatory position. The BMA’s 2018 Enforcement Guide clarifies that enforcement actions are aimed at serious or systemic breaches, not reasonable, well-documented risk decisions. Supervisory relationships remain the appropriate venue for resolving uncertainty or correcting errors.

A good-faith error in the execution of a proportionate compliance measure does not immediately trigger a punitive response. More importantly, the tools, expectations and justifications are already laid out. This is not new ground. The regulatory and supervisory framework in Bermuda explicitly supports the appropriate application of SDD and RDD.

In short, the question is not whether institutions are allowed to use these tools − they are. The real question is whether they are willing to embed them confidently and consistently into their compliance frameworks.

THE COMMERCIAL CASE FOR SMARTER DUE DILIGENCE

Risk-sensitive compliance is not just about cost control, it is also about performance. Institutions that avoid blanket approaches in favour of calibrated due diligence are positioned to accelerate onboarding, improve client satisfaction and support growth with fewer regulatory bottlenecks. In a market where onboarding delays can lose business and rigid procedures alienate customers, flexibility grounded in good risk management is a commercial asset.

This is not a compromise on compliance standards. On the contrary, institutions that successfully operationalise SDD and RDD demonstrate programme sophistication. They show that they understand their risk landscape and have the internal systems to act accordingly.

In essence, the business case for SDD and RDD is not merely about avoiding inefficiency − it is about achieving a strategic advantage in competitive financial services markets.

STEPS TOWARD BETTER UTILISATION

To recalibrate toward efficiency, institutions should:

Reassess customer risk segmentation to identify appropriate opportunities for SDD or RDD.
Update internal guidance and workflows to include formal RDD/SDD procedures.
Educate compliance and business teams on how to document and support these decisions.
Continuously monitor the effectiveness of these measures as part of the institution’s risk assessment cycle.

This is not a call to lower standards. Rather, it is a call to focus effort where it achieves the greatest regulatory and commercial impact.

THE NEED FOR SOPHISTICATION

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, institutions are being tasked with meeting increasingly complex and overlapping obligations. The introduction of the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), along with ongoing developments in AML/ATF, sanctions and other compliance frameworks, expands the scope and depth of responsibilities that financial institutions must manage.

These developments are not isolated. They are cumulative. Without an increase in the sophistication of compliance programmes − especially the implementation of proportionate tools like SDD and RDD − institutions risk overwhelming their operations and diverting resources away from their core business. Compliance cannot come at the cost of commercial viability.

The challenge ahead is not merely to meet obligations but to do so efficiently, strategically and sustainably. The alternative is not safer compliance, rather it is inefficiency, missed opportunity and ultimately, diminished competitiveness.

In short, if we do not embrace smarter approaches, we risk complying ourselves out of business.

First Published In the Bermuda Business Review 2025-2026 – June 2025