Inside a Regulatory Review:

Please join us for a live webinar exploring how surveillance decisions are reviewed once alerts are closed and what firms are increasingly expected to explain months or even years later.

Surveillance credibility is rarely tested at the moment a case is resolved. Instead, it is often challenged much later, when regulators or auditors ask firms to retrieve the data, assumptions, and rationale behind past decisions, sometimes long after the original investigators have moved on.

In this session, Tony Sio will moderate a fireside discussion with regulatory and audit perspectives on where explanations most commonly break down over time, why reasonable surveillance decisions can still fail scrutiny, and what firms can do to ensure decisions remain defensible as markets, models, and teams evolve.

This practical, regulator‑safe discussion is designed for surveillance, compliance, risk, legal, and technology professionals who want to strengthen the long‑term credibility of their surveillance programs beyond the point of alert closure.

• How surveillance decisions are reviewed after alerts are closed
• Why surveillance explanations fail over time — even when decisions were reasonable
• The impact of staff turnover, model change, and evolving market structures
• Supervisor and audit expectations when historical decisions are re‑examined
• Practical questions firms should be able to answer to ensure defensibility