Evidence and scope / Sanctions Screening

Sanctions Screening

Prepare a sanctions-screening evaluation with explicit questions about sources, matching scope, and the information needed for review.

Request a Sanctions Screening Demo Platform Overview
  • Source-referenced results
  • Exposure and match context
  • Human review, not a legal determination

Questions worth exploring

Make the scope of a screening discussion explicit.

A sanctions-screening product conversation should make room for precise questions. Which sources does your team need to discuss? What information would a reviewer need to examine a possible match? Sanctions Screening checks addresses and counterparties against configured sanctions and watchlist sources, including indirect exposure through counterparty relationships — alongside your own specialist review.

Questions for this step
  • Which identifiers do you need to screen: addresses, counterparties, or both?
  • Which networks are relevant to your cases?
  • How would a batch of addresses be submitted?

Illustrative examples with fictional references and sample data.

  • Keep in view · 01

    Sources to verify

    Bring the sources and jurisdictions relevant to your evaluation. Ask for specific coverage information and an explanation of how source updates would be handled.

  • Keep in view · 02

    Matching questions

    Explain what your team means by a match and the context needed to review one. Ask how any available output would distinguish a direct reference from other relationships.

  • Keep in view · 03

    Review information

    Describe the evidence and escalation context needed by your reviewers. Discuss how unresolved information would be recorded and communicated.

Sanctions results workspace

One workspace for the result, the path and the evidence.

Search an address and network, read the status, then move between possible matches, direct and indirect exposure and related counterparties without losing the source reference behind each result.

Sanctions Screening · Results workspaceDemonstration
0x3be0a1c4f27d9b6e0c5d…5d17
NetworkEthereum
Screened Oct 24, 2024 · 14:32 UTC
  • E
    Listed entity B (example)Name and address similarity
    Sample watchlist BMediumPotential match
  • E
    Listed entity C (example)Indirect, via 1 intermediary
    Sample watchlist ALowRequires review
  • E
    Listed entity D (example)Similar name only
    Sample watchlist ALowNo relevant match

Illustrative demo data with fictional references. No live data is shown or looked up on this website.

Match review

Review each match with its evidence, and decide as a person.

Select a case to see the matched reference, why it was raised, what supports it, what conflicts with it and what the analyst decided. Five clear statuses keep confirmed, potential, unresolved and cleared results apart.

  • Listed entity A (example)Exact identifier matchConfirmed match
  • Listed entity B (example)Name and address similarityPotential match
  • Listed entity C (example)Indirect exposure via an intermediaryRequires review
  • Listed entity D (example)Similar name onlyNo relevant match
  • Listed entity E (example)Partial identifierInsufficient evidence
Matched reference

Listed entity B (example)

Potential match
Match type
Name and address similarity
Match confidence
Medium
Source name
Sample watchlist B (example)
Source publication date
Aug 03, 2024
Associated addresses
0x9c41..e07a, association not verified
Supporting evidence

Name similarity plus one shared counterparty.

Conflicting information

A second source describes a different jurisdiction.

Analyst decision

Pending. More evidence requested before any decision.

Statuses are review states set by a person. The software does not make the final legal decision and a status is not a finding of compliance or a violation.

  • Confirmed matchReviewer verified a direct reference in a source entry.
  • Potential matchSome evidence suggests a link. Not yet decided.
  • Requires reviewAssigned to a person for review.
  • No relevant matchReviewed, with a recorded rationale.
  • Insufficient evidenceThe available evidence cannot support a decision.

Illustrative demo data with fictional references.

Direct and indirect exposure

See how far a wallet is from a listed reference.

Direct and indirect exposure are different findings and are drawn differently. Each path shows the hops, the direction, the amount and asset, the exposure percentage, the network, the date and how confident the relationship is.

  • Direct exposure solid red line
  • Indirect exposure dashed amber line
  • Cleared solid emerald line
Direct exposure

The screened wallet sends funds straight to a listed reference

One hop. The strongest kind of link, and always sent for review.

8.6 ETH · outgoingHop 1WScreened wallet0x3be0..5d17!Listed referenceExample entry
Hops
1
Direction
Outgoing
Amount
8.6 ETH
Exposure
12.0%
Network
Ethereum
Date
Oct 02, 2024
Relationship confidence
High
Indirect exposure

Funds pass through an intermediary before reaching a listed reference

Two hops. A prompt for review. It does not show that the wallet owner knew.

12.4 ETH · outgoingHop 112.1 ETH · outgoingHop 2WScreened wallet0x3be0..5d17••Intermediary0x8d2c..7e1f!Listed referenceExample entry
Hops
2
Direction
Outgoing
Amount
12.4 ETH
Exposure
4.2%
Network
Ethereum
Date
Oct 18, 2024
Relationship confidence
Medium
Cleared result

The path ends at a service with no relevant match

One hop. Reviewed, with the rationale recorded by an analyst.

3.1 ETH · incomingHop 1WScreened wallet0x3be0..5d17✓Exchange (example)No relevant match
Hops
1
Direction
Incoming
Amount
3.1 ETH
Exposure
0.0%
Network
Ethereum
Date
Sep 21, 2024
Relationship confidence
High

Exposure is a measure of connection, not of intent or ownership. How exposure is calculated, and how many hops are analysed, is confirmed during evaluation.

Illustrative demo data with fictional references and amounts.

Source transparency

A result is only as useful as the evidence behind it.

For each result, a reviewer should be able to see where it came from and how it was produced. Which sources are actually available is not stated on this page. Treat every item below as a requirement to verify during your evaluation.

Example source recordFictional
Source or watchlist
Sample watchlist A (example)
Source jurisdiction
To be confirmed
Entry identifier
SAMPLE-0142
Publication date
Sep 12, 2024
Last synchronized
Oct 24, 2024 · 14:30 UTC
Matching method
Identifier match (sample)
Referenced entity
Listed entity A (example)
Supporting address information
0x71c4..a9e2

Every result should carry a record like this. The values above are invented for illustration.

  • Source or watchlist

    Which list produced the reference.

    Verify in evaluation

  • Source jurisdiction

    Which authority publishes it.

    Verify in evaluation

  • Entry identifier

    The reference number in the source.

    Verify in evaluation

  • Publication date

    When the entry was published.

    Verify in evaluation

  • Last synchronized

    When we last refreshed the source.

    Verify in evaluation

  • Matching method

    How the result was produced.

    Verify in evaluation

  • Referenced entity

    Who or what the entry describes.

    Verify in evaluation

  • Supporting address information

    Addresses the source associates with it.

    Verify in evaluation

Screening history

Keep a record of what was known, and when.

A screening result changes as sources change. A history keeps each result, each decision and each piece of evidence in order, so a later reviewer can see how a conclusion was reached.

  1. Initial screening

    Wallet screened against the selected sources.

    No relevant match

  2. Source-list update

    A source list is synchronized with new entries.

  3. New potential match

    A new entry resembles the screened wallet’s counterparty.

    Potential match

  4. Analyst review

    An analyst reads the entry, the path and the conflicting source.

    Requires review

  5. Decision recorded

    Rationale and next action are recorded by a named reviewer.

  6. Rescreening event

    The wallet is screened again and the results are compared.

    Requires review

Illustrative demo data with fictional references.

Prepare a focused conversation

Bring a scenario. Define what you want to learn.

Use a fictional review case to explain the evidence your team needs. We’ll walk through source coverage, matching scope, and reviewer context for your scenario — alongside your own specialist compliance review.

  1. 1Specify source requirements
  2. 2Discuss matching scope
  3. 3Define reviewer context

A simple way to structure your evaluation call.

Requirement 1 of 7

Required sanctions sources

Requirement 2 of 7

Addresses or counterparties

Requirement 3 of 7

Matching scope

Requirement 4 of 7

Direct and indirect exposure rules

Indirect depth2
Minimum exposure to flag5
Requirement 5 of 7

Review thresholds

Lower-confidence results stay visible and are marked.

Requirement 6 of 7

Reviewers

Requirement 7 of 7

Required evidence and output

Bring this brief to your demo.Use a fictional review case. Nothing you select here is submitted.
Request a Sanctions Screening Demo

Product verification

What needs confirmation

Sanctions Screening checks addresses and counterparties against configured sanctions and watchlist sources, surfacing direct and indirect matches for review. Use these questions to confirm the details that matter for your evaluation.

  • Ask · 01

    Included sanctions and watchlist sources

    Which lists are included, and which are not?

  • Ask · 02

    Update frequency

    How often is each source refreshed, and how is that shown?

  • Ask · 03

    Supported networks

    Which networks can be screened for your use case?

  • Ask · 04

    Direct exposure detection

    How is a direct link found and presented?

  • Ask · 05

    Indirect exposure depth

    How many hops are analysed, and can it be set?

  • Ask · 06

    Matching methodology

    How are matches produced and explained to a reviewer?

  • Ask · 07

    Confidence calculation

    How is confidence derived, and can it be inspected?

  • Ask · 08

    False-positive handling

    How are false positives dismissed and recorded?

  • Ask · 09

    Screening history

    What is stored, for how long, and can it be exported?

  • Ask · 10

    API and export availability

    Which results can be retrieved by API or exported?

These are evaluation questions, not guaranteed functionality. Answers depend on your deployment and are agreed with the team during your evaluation. No screening result guarantees compliance.

Before your demo

Sanctions Screening: questions and answers

Which sanctions lists are included?

OFAC, UN, EU, and other major sanctions and watchlist sources, updated on a regular cycle. Ask for the current source list and update schedule for your jurisdiction.

Is indirect exposure detection available?

Yes. Sanctions Screening flags both direct matches and indirect exposure through counterparty relationships, so reviewers can see how a risk connects back to a listed entity.

Does this page promise compliance?

No single tool guarantees regulatory compliance. Sanctions Screening gives your team the signals and evidence to support your own compliance program and specialist review.

Related products

Continue your evaluation

Explore related product topics to build a broader evaluation. A sanctions result can move into entity context, human review and a report your team can audit.

  1. Sanctions check
  2. Entity context
  3. Human review
  4. Audit-ready report

Start a conversation

Discuss your sanctions-screening scope

Tell us which sources, exposure rules and review steps your team needs to evaluate.

Request Demo
Platform Overview