Questions Before Selecting Anti Money Laundering Courses for Saudi Employees

A training owner at a finance company in Riyadh has two AML training proposals on her desk. Both promise comprehensive coverage, both list similar modules, and one is noticeably cheaper. Neither says who the course is designed for, what employees should be able to do afterwards, which Saudi requirements it rests on, or when it was last updated. Choosing between them now would be a decision on price and presentation.

Most problems with anti-money laundering courses are visible before the contract is signed, if the right questions are asked. A course built for compliance specialists overwhelms branch staff. A generic international course leaves out the instructions your institution actually follows. An outdated one teaches requirements that have since changed.

This article gives HR teams and functional training owners in Saudi Arabia five questions to ask before selecting anti-money laundering courses for employees: who the audience is, what the objective is, which reference authority the content rests on, how current it is, and how learning will be assessed. It gives no legal or compliance advice and makes no accreditation claims; your compliance function decides which requirements apply to your organization.

Question 1: Who Exactly Are the Anti-Money Laundering Courses For?

‘All employees’ is not an audience. Start by listing the groups who will attend and what their work involves: customer-facing staff, employees who carry out due diligence, back-office and support functions, managers, and the compliance function itself.

Capture each group in a short audience profile: approximate headcount, the decisions its members take, whether they work in Arabic, English or both, and whether they can leave the counter or the call queue for a half-day session. These details shape format as much as content. A branch team on shifts may need short sessions spread over several weeks, while a compliance team can attend a longer specialist program.

For financial institutions supervised by the Saudi Central Bank (SAMA), its AML/CTF Guide is explicit on this point. Section 11.2 says training should take into account the level of employees’ positions and the nature of their work, and should cover all position levels, including board members and committees, managers and executives. It calls for training for current employees and for new employees before they start work, more comprehensive and detailed training for those responsible for due diligence, and specialized training for compliance and independent audit staff.

Even outside SAMA’s supervision, the logic holds: one set of anti-money laundering courses rarely suits every group. Ask each provider which audience its course was designed for, and be cautious of a single product offered to everyone. Our article on comparing anti-money laundering course content by responsibility shows how content should differ between these groups.

Question 2: What Should Employees Be Able to Do Afterwards?

An objective such as ‘raise awareness of money laundering’ cannot be checked. Write learning objectives as observable actions linked to each audience, for example:

• A teller or customer service officer recognizes the warning signs relevant to their desk and raises an internal report through the correct channel.

• An onboarding officer completes the due diligence steps the institution’s procedure requires and records what was checked.

• A compliance analyst reviews an alert, documents the reasoning and decides whether to escalate.

Share these objectives with every provider of anti-money laundering courses you are considering, and ask them to show, module by module, where each one is practiced. If the answer is a list of topics rather than activities, the course is built around information, not performance.

Question 3: Which Reference Authority Does the Content Rest On?

The content of anti-money laundering courses draws on several layers: national laws and implementing regulations, the instructions of the supervisor responsible for your sector, international standards, and your own internal policy. A course can mix these without saying which is which. Ask each provider to name the authority behind every requirement it teaches.

For SAMA-supervised institutions, the same guide notes that Article (14/1) of the Implementing Regulations of the Anti-Money Laundering Law and Article (18) of the Implementing Regulations of the Law on Combating Terrorism Crimes and Financing set out obligations that include ongoing employee training programs. Other sectors answer to other supervisors, and some organizations also follow group policies issued abroad. Your compliance function should confirm which references apply before any provider is shortlisted.

Then check that international material is presented as international guidance, clearly separate from Saudi requirements, and that examples reflect the products, channels and customers your employees actually deal with. Ask, too, whether the provider will build in your internal policy and escalation channels, or whether that layer must be taught by your own compliance team.

Question 4: How Current Is the Content, and Who Keeps It Current?

Requirements, instructions, and money laundering methods change, so anti-money laundering courses that were accurate two years ago may not be accurate today. SAMA’s guide expects ongoing programs that acquaint employees with the regulations, instructions, and updates in the field, and training that includes the new methods used in money laundering and terrorist financing. Content currency is therefore a selection criterion, not an administrative detail.

Ask each provider:

• When was the content last reviewed, and against which version of each reference?

• Who is responsible for updates, and what triggers one?

• If an update is published during the contract, when will it reach your employees?

• Can you see a summary of what changed in the last revision?

If the course will run as eLearning, the National eLearning Center’s eLearning standards offer a useful reference point: they include a continuous evaluation and improvement domain with a sub-dimension on periodic review and update. Whatever the format, record your compliance function’s confirmation of currency, with its date, in the purchase file.

Question 5: How Will Learning Be Assessed?

Attendance and completion show that employees were present, not that they can act. SAMA’s guide asks financial institutions to test employees’ knowledge of AML/CTF requirements and the quality of the training provided, periodically and at least annually. A knowledge test is a start, but the Kirkpatrick Model separates learning from behavior: its Level 3 measures whether people perform the critical behaviors in their work environment.

Ask providers how their anti-money laundering courses assess each objective from Question 2: recall questions, decisions on realistic cases, or work products such as a completed due diligence file. The NeLC standards also give assessment its own domain, covering assessment strategies, procedures, methods and types, which is helpful when a course is delivered online. If eLearning is part of the plan, our guide on testing whether Saudi eLearning moves employees from viewing to practice explains how to compare a viewing design with a practice design.

Two further checks belong with this question. First, ask who delivers the training: SAMA’s guide asks institutions that use specialized institutes to verify the trainer’s academic and work history and to survey trainees after each program. Second, if a provider describes its course as approved or accredited, ask by whom and for what, and verify the claim directly with the body named. A completion certificate records attendance; it does not show competence.

A Hypothetical Example: A Finance Company in Riyadh

This example is hypothetical and is included only to illustrate the method.

A consumer finance company in Riyadh needs anti-money laundering courses for 180 employees: branch sales staff, a credit and onboarding team, collections, support functions, and a five-person compliance team. HR receives two proposals.

The training owner and the head of compliance work through the five questions. Proposal A is a one-day program for everyone, built on an international curriculum. Its provider cannot say which Saudi instructions the content reflects or when it was last revised, and assessment is a 20-question quiz. Proposal B offers a short awareness module for all staff, a scenario workshop for the onboarding team built around the company’s own due diligence steps, and a separate specialist track for compliance. Its references are dated, and the workshop is assessed through decisions on sample customer files.

Proposal B costs more, but the company can now explain why. Before signing, compliance confirms the references and HR asks for the trainer’s profile and one sample scenario, an approach described in our article on evaluating a training sample before selecting a Saudi provider. HR also adds a clause on content updates when instructions change. Three months after the workshop, compliance reviews a sample of real onboarding files against the same checklist used in the scenarios.

Summary

Selecting anti-money laundering courses for Saudi employees starts with five questions: who the course is for, what employees should be able to do afterwards, which authority the content rests on, how current it is, and how learning will be assessed. Providers that answer clearly make the comparison easy; providers that cannot answer have told you something important.

Keep your compliance function at the center of the reference and currency questions, and treat any accreditation claim attached to anti-money laundering courses as something to verify, not assume. The result is a purchase decision you can explain to management and to internal audit.

Click here if you want Skillup MENA to help you.