There is always a reason to postpone your AML training. A client deadline. A board meeting. A team already stretched. The intention to learn remains while diary space quietly disappears.
By year-end, the question returns: who still needs to complete their training? For business leaders, there is a bigger question behind it. How do we help people keep developing when the demands of the business rarely slow down?
My view is that professional learning needs to be designed around that reality. If keeping people knowledgeable depends on finding a quiet week, we will continue to bend to the will of the next urgent task.
This matters particularly in compliance, where knowledge must travel beyond the specialist team and into the everyday decisions of the business.
Learning belongs across the business
An employee speaking to a client may be the first to hear an explanation that needs further clarification. A senior officer may have to decide whether an issue should be escalated. A director may need to challenge how a risk is being managed.
Those responsibilities are connected, but the learning needed to fulfil them will differ. A programme that helps an onboarding employee understand customer due diligence will serve a different purpose from one that helps a director exercise oversight.
This is why I believe leaders should take a wider view of AML/CFT/CPF training. The compliance function can guide and support the business. People in other departments require enough understanding to recognise when compliance advice is needed.
For compliance officers, MLROs and DMLROs, our e-learning can also contribute towards your CPD obligations. For other employees and directors, refresher training offers an opportunity to strengthen knowledge relevant to their own responsibilities.
The coordination problem deserves a better answer
For management companies arranging training for client entity directors, simply agreeing a date can become a project with different boards, locations and diaries making a single classroom session difficult to coordinate.
E-learning offers a practical way forward. An employee can make progress between work commitments. A director can do their AML training around board responsibilities. Someone who needs to revisit a difficult topic can return to the material during the course access period.
The flexibility is valuable because it gives people more opportunities to engage. It should also be accompanied by a clear completion date and time that the organisation genuinely protects for learning. “At your own pace” works best when it comes with a plan.
Convenience must come with substance
The choice of format is only part of the decision. Leaders should also consider whether the content is relevant to the learner, whether explanations are clear and whether assessments encourage people to think through what they have learned.
While classroom discussion remains valuable, online learning can make specialist knowledge more accessible. An organisation can use both, according to the subject and the people involved.
A useful follow-up is simple: ask a learner what they would now approach differently in their work. That conversation can reveal where the learning has connected and where further support would help.
The approaching 31 December deadline provides a reason to review outstanding 2026 training for employees, senior officers and directors, including client entity directors. It is also an opportunity to decide how learning will be supported in the year ahead.
At Abler Group, we have developed our e-learning offering across AML/CFT/CPF, financial crime, specialist compliance and governance with busy professionals in mind. The aim is to make relevant learning easier to fit into working life.
The quiet week you’re waiting for may never arrive. Making room for learning is a leadership decision we can take now.
