AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia)vsNAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)
See exactly how AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls map to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) maps to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) with 5% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 39 AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls identifies 37 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in AML/CTF Program Requirements.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 39 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 3 of 3 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Customer Identification (KYC)(1 mappings)
AML/CTF Program Requirements(2 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) comparisons
Other NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) and NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) has 39 controls across its framework, while NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (5% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in AML/CTF Program Requirements, where 10 AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls have no direct NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) equivalent.
How many controls map between AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) and NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
Of 39 total AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls, 2 map directly to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls — representing 5% coverage. The remaining 37 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
37 AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) controls have no direct equivalent in NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668). The highest concentration of gaps is in AML/CTF Program Requirements with 10 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between AML/CTF Act 2006 (Australia) and NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
The domain with the highest gap count is AML/CTF Program Requirements (10 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.