Bank Compliance
For the bank compliance team that needs independent sources before an actual spending, legal or operating decision.
Review scope →
Do external identity, ownership and adverse-record signals justify further escalation?
For the bank compliance team that needs independent sources before an actual spending, legal or operating decision.
Review scope →For the fintech directors team that needs independent sources before an actual spending, legal or operating decision.
Review scope →For the kyc managers team that needs independent sources before an actual spending, legal or operating decision.
Review scope →Onboarding, unusual-activity escalation, sanctions or politically exposed-person flag
Disambiguate entities, trace official sanctions or ownership entries and preserve provenance.
We make the client’s claim, the original record, conflicting sources and the unknowns readable before commitment.
One named subject or event; up to three material claims; agreed source jurisdictions and date window. Deliverable: Source coverage sheet, first three contradictions or gaps, clear next-record requests.
Review service and acceptance →One main entity or asset and up to four related names, owners, locations, records or aliases. Deliverable: Entity or asset-resolution table, link-confidence explanation and original source chain.
Review service and acceptance →Up to five numbered claims from a supplied proposal, transaction pack or public statement. Deliverable: Claim-by-claim citations, opposite sources, date-sensitive uncertainty and unproved statements.
Review service and acceptance →One bounded event sequence; disclosed evidence window; source provenance and known omissions. Deliverable: Chronology chart, disputed-event table, original-record references and unresolved sequence.
Review service and acceptance →Named entity and up to five related organisations or responsible entities identified from lawful records. Deliverable: Evidence-supported relationship diagram, mismatches, ownership questions and exposure caveats.
Review service and acceptance →One defined commercial decision, six critical questions, specified sources and no unlimited investigation. Deliverable: Executive decision memo, evidence/contradiction matrix, dated primary-source index and recommendations for further questions.
Review service and acceptance →Written pilot of up to ten defined file types, with sampling rules, turnaround assumptions and exclusions. Deliverable: Consistent file-by-file evidence cards, exception register and consolidated management view.
Review service and acceptance →One named subject or a written small watchlist; specified public records, cadence, escalation threshold. Deliverable: Dated change log, evidence citations, false-positive dispositions and monthly change summary.
Review service and acceptance →Each pathway has a narrower research question, decision-ready evidence specification, source scope and written-commissioning path.
Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind aml public-source intelligence, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind kyc entity verification, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind pep relationship intelligence, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind financial crime adverse media review, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind shell company network research, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind cross-border financial entity intelligence, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind financial fraud pattern research, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →Test the exact source and contrary evidence behind enhanced due diligence research support, rather than commission a generic industry report.
Review scope →The following sources may support this type of work; their existence is not a claim that a prospective client or named matter has been verified.
Source to test against the actual claim, checked for effective dates, coverage and access limitations. Not a client-specific verification result.
Open source →Source to test against the actual claim, checked for effective dates, coverage and access limitations. Not a client-specific verification result.
Open source →No regulated AML sign-off, screening guarantee or legal clearance; false positive risk.
Acceptance is conditional on conflict, jurisdiction, lawful access, data protection, capacity and written fee approval.
Match the size of the assignment to the present decision.
Review scope →View the contents of an illustrative research output without invented findings.
Review scope →Understand written standard-fee proposals, pilot limits and the approval process.
Review scope →Lawful-source coverage varies. The documents explain the proposed method; no case, professional certification, continuous watch or fee has been approved automatically.