Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42724085›Full record

ArticleEPJ data science2026

Assessing the value of objective suspicious transactions in Dutch anti-money laundering investigations: a network approach.

Elena Candellone, Peter Gerbrands, Mahdi Shafiee Kamalabad, Javier Garcia-Bernardo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EPJ data science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elena CandelloneDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter GerbrandsSchool of Economics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mahdi Shafiee KamalabadDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Javier Garcia-BernardoDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing volume of suspicious transaction reports (STRs), covering transactions that may be generated by criminal activity, presents both opportunities and challenges for anti-money laundering (AML) investigations. Objective STRs, automatically triggered based on predefined criteria, are generally de-prioritized by investigators compared to subjective STRs filed on expert judgment. In this study, we analyze the investigative value of objective STRs using five years of data from the Dutch Anti-Money Laundering Centre, part of the Dutch Investigation Service for Financial and Tax Crime (FIOD), one of the national agencies involved in identifying and investigating money laundering. We apply a network science framework to analyze how objective STRs contribute to (i) expanding the number of unique entities linked to investigated cases, (ii) connecting previously disconnected dossiers, and (iii) improving predictive accuracy for identifying entities under investigation. Although objective STRs represent a small fraction of reports, they increase network coverage and connectivity, adding new entities and dossiers, including cases under investigation. However, including objective transaction data when computing centrality-based predictors does not improve the accuracy of identifying entities under active investigation. These findings suggest that, while objective reports help flag potential cases, more descriptive reporting is needed to support investigations.

Indexed as

Anti-money laundering investigationsFinancial intelligenceMoney launderingNetwork analysisSuspicious transaction reports

Identifiers

PMID42724085
PMCPMC13558334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.