AML screening
Compare names and entities against sanctions, PEP and related risk records. Review matches together with their sources.
Sanctions recordsPEP informationSourced finding
Identity verification · AML · Blockchain screening
From identity to transaction, make risk visible.
Assess KYC, AML and blockchain screening together. From onboarding to ongoing checks, access the risk data your team needs through Legichain.
Digital KYC session
Application KYC-2481 · 4 steps
-
Document capture
MRZ and visual fields read; document type recognised.
-
Chip read
Chip data is consistent with the details on the document.
-
Person check
Liveness and face-matching checks completed.
-
Result assessment
One field could not be verified automatically; passed to the team.
Finding Finding needs review
- Description
- Address field could not be read from the document; manual check suggested.
- Source
- Document capture step · field validation
- System suggestion
- Review
- Team decision
- Pending
Name screening
Query SCR-7730 · 2 candidate records
Full nameAli ÖrnekYear of birth1978CountryTRTypePerson
Candidate records · select one
Assessment of the selected record
- Match confidence
- 72%Full name and year of birth matched; ID number could not be compared.
- Risk indicator
- HighRecord type: sanctions designation.
- System suggestion
- Review
- Source
- Sanctions list (sample source) · record SL-0419Data as of 28 Aug 2026 · UTC
- Team decision
- Pending
- Match confidence
- 41%Only the first name matched; year of birth is not in the record.
- Risk indicator
- MediumRecord type: PEP information; not grounds for rejection on its own.
- System suggestion
- Review
- Source
- PEP record (sample source) · record PEP-2210Data as of 21 Aug 2026 · UTC
- Team decision
- Pending
Wallet relationships
Query WLT-1093 · 2-hop relationship depth
Selected wallet Counterparty Labelled address Indirect relationship
- Network
- EVM-compatible network (sample)
- Address
- 0x7a3f…9c1e
- Risk indicator
- Medium · indirect relationship
- Data as of
- 2 Sep 2026 · UTC
Selection details
Selected wallet. 3 direct counterparties; 1 labelled address (D) at 2 hops. No direct sanctions match.
Address A. Direct transaction relationship; no recorded label. Indirect link through its own counterparty E.
Address B. Direct transaction relationship; no label. Has transaction history with labelled address D.
Address C. Direct transaction relationship; no label.
Address D. Label: mixer service (sample source). Relationship to the wallet is indirect (2 hops, via B). The basis and date of the label are in the source record.
Address E. Indirect relationship to the selected wallet (via A); no label.
Address F. Indirect relationship to the selected wallet (via C); no label.
W → A: direct transfer relationship. Direction: outgoing. No label on the address.
W ↔ B: direct transfer relationship. Direction: incoming and outgoing. B has transacted with labelled address D.
W → C: direct transfer relationship. Direction: outgoing. No label.
B ↔ D: source of indirect exposure. D is labelled mixer service (sample source). Not a direct match for the selected wallet.
A ↔ E: 2 hops from the selected wallet; no label.
C ↔ F: 2 hops from the selected wallet; no label.
Synthetic scenario. Results are not an institutional decision; they feed your review process.
Products
The checks you need, in a clear product structure.
Blockchain screening
Assess risk indicators for wallet addresses. See the supported networks and the scope of analysis.
Wallet addressRelationship contextDefined network scope
Digital KYC
Add document and identity checks to your onboarding flow. Give users clear steps and your team reviewable results.
Document dataPerson checkReview path
Explainable result
See the result. Understand its basis.
The value of an alert is measured by how well your team can assess it. Review the match details, the data source and the check result together to decide the next step.
- 01Start the check.
Send the relevant customer, document or wallet data into the product flow.
- 02Review the findings.
Assess the result with its source, scope and available context.
- 03Record your decision.
Proceed according to your institution's policy; separate the cases that need human review.
QueryAli Örnek · 1978 · TRSelected candidateALI ORNEK · SL-0419StatusReview required
Source
Sanctions list (sample source)
Record SL-0419 · programme in the record · data as of 28 Aug 2026 UTC
Match confidence
72%
Matched fields: full name, year of birth. Not comparable: ID number.
Risk indicator
High
Record type is a sanctions designation. Assessed independently of match confidence.
Matched fields
- Full name — exact match
- Year of birth — matched
- ID number — not in the record
System suggestion
Review Source and identity fields should be assessed together.
Team decision
Pending Decision and rationale are kept as a separate record.
Risk, match confidence, system suggestion and the institution's decision are separate fields. A match on its own is not a final decision.
Solutions
A control flow that fits your business model.
-
01
Banks
Connect onboarding and screening assessments to your institution's processes.
Explore -
02
Crypto-asset platforms
Handle customer identity and wallet risk together.
Explore -
03
Payment and e-money institutions
Place onboarding and screening steps inside your product experience.
Explore -
04
Fintech
Pick the checks you need; grow the integration scope with your product.
Explore
Developers
A clear starting point for technical evaluation.
Evaluate the API structure, product scope and data-processing requirements. Once the integration scenario is clear with your team, build the implementation plan.
- API documentation Request, response and error states
- Security and data processing Access, retention, responsibilities
- Pricing Plans and credit usage
Sample data
// Sent server-side with the secret API key
{
"subject": {
"type": "person",
"name": "Ali Örnek",
"birth_year": 1978,
"country": "TR"
},
"reference": "customer-2481"
}{
"screening_id": "scr_example_7730",
"status": "review_required",
"matches": [
{
"candidate": "ALI ORNEK",
"source": {
"name": "Sanctions list (sample source)",
"record_id": "SL-0419",
"data_as_of": "2026-08-28"
},
"matched_fields": ["name", "birth_year"],
"match_confidence": 0.72,
"risk_indicator": "high",
"recommendation": "review"
}
],
"decision": null
}Frequently asked questions
Short answers.
Common questions about product scope and the evaluation process.
Which processes does Legichain support?
It offers products for Digital KYC, AML and blockchain screening. You can review the available scope on the relevant product page and clarify the details in an evaluation call.
Do we have to use all the products together?
You can define the products you need and the commercial scope in an evaluation call. Plan details are on the pricing page.
Is a screening result a final compliance decision?
No. Screening findings feed your institution's assessment process. The final action is determined within your institutional policy and applicable obligations.
Let's define the flow that fits your needs.
Let's talk about which checks you will use, how you will assess the results and what your integration requires.