Product · AML screening
Turn a name match into a finding you can assess.
Compare customer and entity details against sanctions, PEP and related risk records. Manage your review process by assessing match likelihood and risk indicator separately.
A similar name alone does not indicate the same person. Each candidate is compared field by field.
- 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
- 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
- Team decision
- Pending
Scope
What do you check?
-
Record type 01
Sanctions records
See possible matches against records in the supported sources.
-
Record type 02
PEP information
Assess records associated with public functions in the customer's context.
-
Record type 03
Other risk records
Clarify adverse media and related record types offered within the product scope in the evaluation call.
Match assessment
Assess more than a name.
Similar names alone do not indicate the same person. Available additional identity details, the source of the record and the match details form the context of the review. Do not present results with missing data as definitive matches.
| Field | Query | Candidate record | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full name | Ali Örnek | ALI ORNEK | Matched (spelling difference normalised) |
| Date of birth | 12.04.1978 | 1978 | Partial: only the year compared |
| Country | TR | — | Not in the record |
| ID number | Not provided | — | Not comparable |
| Source | Sanctions list (sample source) · SL-0419 | Record link available | |
Three separate fields
Source, confidence and risk kept apart.
Three parts of the same sample result. Instead of a single unexplained percentage, each field answers its own question.
Source
Review which record the finding rests on.
Record SL-0419 · data as of 28 Aug 2026 UTC
Match confidence
Assess the indicators of how the result relates to the person or entity searched for.
Full name and year of birth matched
Risk indicator
Consider the record type and its significance for your institutional policy.
Integration
Connect the check to your own flow.
Start the screening request from your integration. Link the result to the relevant customer record and pass it to your institution's review steps. Use the technical documentation for response fields and error states.
Coverage
See the screening scope in advance.
Sources, data types and product limits are part of the purchase evaluation. Clarify the sources and data types you need together with our team.
- SourcesSource name, record type, update approach
- Data typesPerson, entity and available fields
- RescreeningInitial screening and monitoring are separate capabilities
- Report fieldsRecord, rationale and decision record
Frequently asked questions
About AML screening.
Does a match confirm that the customer is under sanctions?
No. The result is a finding that must be assessed with identity and source details.
Is a PEP record grounds for automatic rejection?
PEP status on its own does not mean crime or automatic rejection. The related risk assessment is made within your institution's processes.
Which lists are screened?
The current source list, record types and update information are shared in the evaluation call. An institution's name appearing on the site does not mean all of its datasets are supported.
Is there ongoing monitoring?
Initial screening and rescreening/monitoring are different capabilities. Clarify the available monitoring scope in the technical evaluation.
Let's define the flow that fits your needs.
Let's talk about the product scope, your integration requirements and your assessment process.