# Assess wallet risk with transaction context.

> Review risk indicators for wallet addresses. Evaluate the supported networks, the analysis scope and blockchain screening integration.

Canonical URL: https://legichain.com/en/blockchain-aml
Language: en
Other language: https://legichain.com/blockchain-aml

Bring findings about blockchain addresses into your customer and transaction processes. See which network, data source and relationship type the analysis covers.

- [Book a demo](https://legichain.com/en/contact?topic=demo)
- [Discuss network coverage](https://legichain.com/en/contact?topic=integration)

_Interactive example (synthetic data): sample screening by network and address; 5 direct and 4 indirect counterparties, labelled addresses and an equivalent list view._

| Address | Relationship | Label | Direction | Hops |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0x41a2…c0d8 | Direct | — | Outgoing | 1 |
| 0x9bf3…77e1 | Direct | — | In / out | 1 |
| 0x1c6e…a940 | Direct | — | Outgoing | 1 |
| 0xd05a…3b2f | Direct | — | Incoming | 1 |
| 0x77c1…e5a9 | Direct | — | Incoming | 1 |
| 0x2ee4…19bb | Indirect (via A) | — | Incoming | 2 |
| 0x5f80…6d21 | Indirect (via B) | Mixer service (sample source) | Incoming | 2 |
| 0xab19…04c7 | Indirect (via C) | — | Outgoing | 2 |
| 0x63d7…f8e2 | Indirect (via D) | High-risk service category (sample) | Incoming | 2 |

## Select the address. Define the scope. Review the result.

- **Identify the network and address.** — Bear in mind that the same address format can be used on more than one network. When unclear, the user is asked to select the network.
- **Start the screening.** — Assess the address with the supported analysis type. Query type and relationship depth are defined in the coverage.
- **Handle the finding in context.** — Review the source and available relationship information together with the customer record.

## A risk label is not enough on its own.

What a label rests on, when it was updated and which relationship it describes all matter. Do not treat a direct record match and indirect exposure as the same result.

_The distinction between a direct relationship (1 hop) and indirect exposure (2 hops); the fields of a label: label, basis, update date, relationship type, direction and the action your institution defines in its own policy._

## From onboarding to transfer review.

- **Wallet assessment** — Review the risk information of a new address.
- **Pre-transfer check** — Add the screening result to your institution's decision flow.
- **Review record** — Link the finding to the relevant customer and transaction reference.

## Network support is explicitly defined.

The same analysis depth may not be available on every network. Review the supported network, query type and data scope before the technical evaluation.

- [Discuss network coverage](https://legichain.com/en/contact?topic=integration)
- **Network** — Supported network and address format
- **Address query** — Single-address assessment
- **Analysis type** — Label matching, relationship analysis
- **Relationship depth** — How many hops are followed
- **Data scope and limits** — Source, freshness, boundaries

## About blockchain screening.

### Can the network be determined with certainty from the address format?

Not always. Additional network information may be needed, especially on networks that share address formats.

### Does a risky label mean automatic blocking?

A screening finding and the action your institution applies are different things. Blocking and review rules are defined in your own policy.

## Let's define the flow that fits your needs.

Let's talk about network coverage, analysis type and your integration requirements.

- [Book a demo](https://legichain.com/en/contact?topic=demo)

---
Legichain — technology for identity verification, AML and blockchain screening. Contact: contact@legichain.com