Related Questions
.png)
Most sanctions compliance guides assume you have complete customer data. They present screening as a straightforward exercise: collect entity information, verify beneficial owners, run name matches, and review results.
Reality is different.
Payment processors, embedded finance platforms, and merchant acquirers frequently face incomplete information. Sole proprietors lack formal registration documents. Cross-border entities operate in opaque jurisdictions. Ownership structures rely on self-reporting without third-party verification. Business relationships change faster than Know Your Business (KYB) refresh cycles can track.
This is not primarily a data problem. It is a process problem.
The question is not whether you can achieve perfect certainty with limited data. The question is whether you have defined your exposure points, screened the parties you can identify, implemented continuous monitoring, and documented the limitations of your program.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) places compliance burden directly on payment facilitators and financial institutions. Under 31 CFR 501.604, you must block prohibited transactions within 10 days and file reports demonstrating your sanctions program. Failure to comply results in civil penalties, enforcement actions, and reputational damage.
OFAC's Framework for Compliance Commitments establishes that ongoing screening is a fundamental element of sanctions compliance. Regulators expect risk teams to demonstrate they can detect sanctions exposure that arises after onboarding, not just at account opening.
This means programs built on one-time checks at customer intake no longer meet baseline standards. Your screening infrastructure must respond to list updates, customer changes (new beneficial owners, jurisdiction expansions, business model shifts), and behavioral signals (payment counterparties, geographic patterns, transaction descriptors).
Platform businesses serving thousands of sub-merchants, marketplaces facilitating cross-border transactions, and fintech applications with self-service onboarding all face the same challenge. How do you scale sanctions compliance when customer data quality varies across your portfolio?
Traditional KYB approaches that require full incorporation documents, verified beneficial owner registries, and multi-month underwriting cycles do not work at platform scale. Yet regulatory expectations remain the same regardless of your business model.
Incomplete customer information does not reduce your sanctions obligations. OFAC has enforcement authority over transactions involving sanctioned parties, regardless of whether you knew about the connection or faced data limitations. Your sanctions program must account for what you do not know and implement compensating controls that mitigate exposure.
This requires transparency. Document what data you collect, what data you cannot obtain, what percentage of your customer base falls into each category, and what alternative controls you apply to high-gap segments.
We see rigorous sanctions programs with limited data break down into four core components:
Start by documenting exactly where sanctions risk can enter your program. This includes direct parties (customer entities, beneficial owners, key management personnel), indirect parties (parent companies, subsidiaries, disclosed business partners), and transaction-level indicators (payer locations, payee locations, shipping addresses, product descriptors).
For each exposure point, document your data source, completeness percentage, verification method, update frequency, screening approach, and gap mitigation. This creates a systematic view of what you screen, what you do not screen, and why.
Example: If you collect beneficial owner information from 68% of customers but lack date of birth for 55% of those beneficial owners, your screening methodology must account for higher false positive rates when matching on name alone. Your documentation should state this limitation explicitly and describe compensating controls (enhanced transaction monitoring, lower review thresholds, geographic restrictions).
Not all sanctions lists apply to all programs. U.S. entities must screen against OFAC. European Union (EU) entities must screen against the EU Consolidated List. United Kingdom (UK) entities post-Brexit must screen against the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) list. If you process dollar payments through correspondent banking relationships, you face OFAC obligations regardless of your home jurisdiction.
Effective screening accounts for name variations (transliteration from non-Latin scripts, nicknames, corporate name suffixes), uses fuzzy matching algorithms with risk-appropriate thresholds (we typically see 80% to 90% similarity cutoffs), and implements systematic false positive clearance processes using additional identifiers like date of birth, address, nationality, and registration numbers.
When unique entity identifiers are available (tax IDs, company registration numbers, Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) codes), use them to reduce false positive rates. When they are unavailable, document the limitation and tune matching thresholds to balance false positives against false negatives.
Sanctions exposure is not static. Lists update frequently. Customer circumstances change. Transaction patterns evolve. Programs that screen only at onboarding accumulate undetected exposure over time.
We recommend implementing three monitoring layers:
List monitoring: Rescreen all existing customers daily against updated sanctions lists. Track list versions and maintain audit logs showing when each customer was last screened and against which list version.
Customer change monitoring: Define specific triggering events (new beneficial owner, jurisdiction expansion, name change, parent company change) that require immediate rescreening. Include contractual language requiring customers to notify you of material changes within 30 days. For high-risk segments, monitor public records and news sources for unreported changes.
Transaction pattern monitoring: Flag behavioral signals that may indicate sanctions exposure even when static data screening returns no matches. This includes first-time payments to high-risk jurisdictions, counterparty names with high similarity to sanctioned entities, product descriptors overlapping with restricted sectors (defense, dual-use goods, precious metals), and transaction volumes inconsistent with historical patterns.
Transparency about program limitations is essential for regulatory examinations and internal risk management. When data gaps prevent complete screening, document the gap and describe alternative controls.
Examples:
"Beneficial owner date of birth is collected for 45% of disclosed beneficial owners. Screening for beneficial owners without date of birth relies on name and nationality matching only. False positive rates for this segment are 3.2x higher than for beneficial owners with complete identifiers. Compensating control: Enhanced transaction monitoring with $5,000 manual review threshold (versus $10,000 standard threshold)."
"Parent company information is disclosed by 40% of customers. Screening covers disclosed parent entities but does not extend to undisclosed affiliates or sister companies. Compensating control: Customers with parent companies in Financial Action Task Force (FATF) high-risk jurisdictions are subject to quarterly manual reviews including news screening and public records checks."
"Customers in jurisdictions with no public beneficial owner registries (certain offshore financial centers) are limited to $50,000 monthly volume pending enhanced due diligence."
Documentation templates should include screening coverage metrics by customer segment, known data limitations, and a register of compensating controls applied to high-gap populations.
Organizations that implement this framework gain:
Clear audit trails demonstrating that your screening program validates OFAC compliance, responds to list updates, and monitors customer changes. Documentation showing you have identified data gaps and applied compensating controls.
Systematic detection of direct and indirect sanctions exposure before prohibited transactions occur. Lower false negative rates through continuous monitoring versus point-in-time screening.
Risk-based match resolution processes that auto-clear low-risk matches, route medium-risk matches to front-line analysts, and escalate only high-risk matches to senior compliance staff. Reduction in review backlogs and faster customer onboarding.
Coverage metrics showing exactly which customer segments have incomplete data, allowing you to prioritize data enhancement efforts where they reduce risk most effectively.
Documented policies, screening logs with timestamps and dispositions, investigation notes with evidence trails, and version-controlled procedures demonstrating program maturity to regulators and auditors.
Ballerine's merchant underwriting and monitoring platform helps financial institutions and payment processors implement continuous sanctions screening at scale. The platform automates exposure point mapping across direct parties, beneficial owners, and corporate structures. It maintains daily rescreening against updated sanctions lists and flags customer change events that require investigation.
Risk teams use Ballerine to document data gaps systematically, generate screening coverage metrics by customer segment, and maintain audit-ready documentation for regulatory examinations. The platform integrates with existing compliance workflows, reducing manual review volume while maintaining investigative depth where it matters.
.png)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
