TIs perception of corruption index CPI2020 [#CPI] is out – BUT is it any use for AML risk assessments?

Transparency International's perception of corruption index CPI2020 [#CPI] is out. Once again, its results make absolutely zero sense – and interestingly TI acknowledges that the results shouldn't fool one, and took the time to list the REAL #corruption issues of its top 25 performers.

For example look at what they say about the best country Denmark (88): a top performer that shouldn't fool you

1. While Denmark (88) has a public sector that may well be exemplary for anti-corruption, it does not mean this top scorer is completely clean.
2. Denmark's anti-bribery laws have significant limitations, and the Danske Bank scandal highlighted how weak supervision in the financial sector allowed millions in suspicious funds to enter the European Union (EU).
3. Danske Bank scandal
   • While the Danske Bank scandal made it clear that Denmark's financial supervisory authority did not
     • Have the necessary powers,
     • Resources or capacity to supervise the financial sector,
   • Since then
     • More inspectors have been hired, and
     • The supervisory body gained new powers to monitor and sanction banks.
   • However, it remains to be seen how these recent changes will be implemented.

So my question is:

• Should another index reflecting grand corruption be produced?
• Should firms follow the index in their risk assessments?

https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2020-trouble-in-the-top-25-countries