Would an AML review still be considered independent even if the reviewer wrote the AML Program?

Nope, that is exactly what happened this last time around. I reviewed the program, found it inadequate, rewrote it and initiated it; and was told by my examiners I have to hire out for this year. But, heck, we passed and that was all that mattered.

Where in the Regs does it say this? There is not even a definition of Independence. As long as the person writing the program and reviewing it is not the compliance officer in charge of implementation why would it matter?

I think the problem was my implementation of the project. But, the examiner pointed out that how can I effectively analyze a program that I constructed. Obviously, if I thought it was good when I wrote it, I would not be objective in the analysis of its effectiveness. Yes?

Shouldn't this be the function of the internal (or external) auditor?

His review is more technical, like CTR and SAR completion; CTRs matching to the large cash report; CIP forms completed properly, etc.

I looked at the overall BSA Program Risk Assessment process, policies & procedures. I reviewed the high risk accounts, foreign wires, suspect wires, SAR information and followups at the branch, MSB activity and also reviewed accounts not labeled as high risk to see if they truly were low risk. And so on...

Devil Queen is right. The person who drafted the AML program shouldn't be conducting the review of the program. This clearly is not "independent."

Many banks hire an outside firm to do their annual BSA audit. This is the best approach to take as the outside firm should also evaluate the AML program itself to determine if it is adequate for the size and nature of the bank.

One doesn't need a detailed definition of "independence" to see that the person who wrote the program is not "independent" enough to review it as required.

Ask yourself, would you allow a wire transfer clerk to "independently" verify a transfer that they entered into the system? I think not.