Effectively budgeting for anti-money laundering (AML) consultancy services represents a critical and perhaps somewhat daunting task for any financial institution, given the complexities of the field. The process must be approached with a keen understanding of the multidimensional nature of AML and a strategic allocation of resources. Let us delve into a thorough exploration of this subject, shedding light on the intricacies involved.

To begin with, the term 'anti-money laundering' refers to a set of procedures, laws, and regulations designed to halt the practice of generating income through illegal activities. 'Money laundering’ as a concept embodies the conversion of illicitly obtained money into a seemingly legal and untraceable form. AML consultants, therefore, have the hefty responsibility of ensuring that financial institutions are not inadvertently supporting illegal activities.

The first step in budgeting for AML consultants involves understanding the specific requirements of your institution. AML is far from a monolithic field; it includes a range of sub-disciplines such as sanctions compliance, fraud detection, know-your-customer (KYC) procedures, and transaction monitoring. Each institution will have its unique needs based on its size, customer base, geographical location, and the array of services it provides. Smaller banks, for instance, may not require a full-fledged sanctions compliance program, while a large multinational bank will need comprehensive services spanning all aspects of AML.

Once the needs have been identified, the next step is benchmarking. This involves gathering data on the average costs of hiring AML consultants, either on a project basis or as a permanent part of your team. This data can be obtained from industry reports, peer institutions, and consulting firms themselves. When benchmarking, it's crucial to consider the Pareto efficiency, an economic principle that states that resources should be allocated in such a way that it is impossible to make one party better off without making another party worse off. In this scenario, it refers to achieving the most efficient allocation of financial resources without compromising on the quality of AML services.

The third step is to factor in the costs of non-compliance. Regulatory bodies worldwide are becoming increasingly stringent in enforcing AML regulations, with penalties for non-compliance often reaching millions of dollars. The cost-benefit analysis here may seem heavily skewed towards the 'benefit' side, given the high potential costs of non-compliance. However, it is important to remember the principle of marginal utility, which argues that the benefit derived from an additional unit of something decreases as more and more units are consumed. In this context, hiring additional AML consultants may not necessarily result in a proportional decrease in the risk of non-compliance.

The fourth and final step is to continually review and adjust the budget as necessary. The field of AML is dynamic and constantly evolving, with new threats, technologies, and regulations emerging all the time. An effective budgeting process, therefore, should not be a one-time event but a continuous endeavor that reflects these changes.

To sum up, budgeting for AML consultancy services is a complex and multifaceted exercise that requires a deep understanding of the field and careful strategic planning. While the stakes are high, the potential benefits in terms of regulatory compliance, risk mitigation, and reputation protection make this a worthy investment. It is a delicate and challenging dance, but one that financial institutions around the globe must perfect on the grand stage of international finance.