Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
01/07/2026 1:57 am
TL;DR: More than 15,000 professionals have already been trained and certificates now count as recognised evidence of competence across compliance and risk workflows, according to SumSub. The shift matters because standardised, verifiable learning is becoming a governance requirement, not just a training nice-to-have.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Sumsub: Sumsub Academy receives CPD accreditation for compliance training
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should compliance teams use accredited training in regulated workflows?
A: Use accredited training as evidence that staff have completed structured learning for specific workflows, then link it to role ownership, supervision, and review outcomes.
Q: When does compliance training become a governance control rather than awareness raising?
A: Training becomes a governance control when it is standardised, recorded, and mapped to real operational responsibilities.
Q: What signals show that teams are not ready to apply compliance training in practice?
A: The main signals are inconsistent case handling, repeated escalation errors, weak audit evidence, and dependence on a few experienced staff to interpret exceptions.
Practitioner guidance
- Map accredited courses to control ownership Assign accredited learning to staff who own onboarding, verification, fraud review, and escalation decisions so training evidence supports the controls they operate.
- Separate awareness from readiness Use course completion as a baseline, then validate competence through workflow tests, supervised case reviews, and periodic reassessment.
- Track training evidence alongside policy attestations Keep certificates, learning hours, and role assignment records together so audits can trace who was trained, when, and for which regulated process.
What's in the full article
Sumsub's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The course structure and learning tracks that sit behind the accredited certificates
- How the academy is positioned for compliance onboarding, refresher learning, and professional development
- The practical format of the free modules and how learners can complete them at their own pace
- The way Sumsub describes use of the training across enterprise teams, partners, and individual practitioners
👉 Read Sumsub's announcement on CPD accreditation for Sumsub Academy →
CPD-accredited compliance training: what it means for risk teams?
Explore further
01/07/2026 2:14 am
Verified learning is becoming part of compliance governance, not a separate HR activity. When organisations can show that training has been accredited and completed, they gain a stronger evidence trail for control ownership and accountability. That matters in regulated environments where the question is increasingly not whether people were informed, but whether they can prove competence at the point of action. Practitioners should treat learning records as a governance artifact.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 44% of developers are reported to follow security best practices for secrets management, exposing a significant developer behaviour gap, according to GitGuardian & CyberArk's The State of Secrets in AppSec.
- The same research says the average estimated time to remediate a leaked secret is 27 days, even though 75% of organisations express strong confidence in their secrets management capabilities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own evidence that compliance staff have been trained correctly?
A: Ownership should sit with the function that controls the workflow, usually compliance leadership in partnership with line managers and internal audit. Training records are strongest when they sit alongside role definitions, supervision rules, and periodic reassessment, because then competence can be tied to actual responsibility rather than attendance alone.
👉 Read our full editorial: Sumsub Academy accreditation raises the bar for compliance training
