Adverse media vs sanctions screening: keep findings distinct

A news report and a sanctions record answer different questions

Sanctions screening compares identities with selected authority or other supported sources. Media review assesses relevant reporting from a separate research process. SanctionsKit does not provide comprehensive adverse-media research. Adding an article to a case does not turn it into an official sanctions source.

Use New screening in the dashboard or POST /api/v1/screenings with known customer facts and approved available coverage. Keep the screening and case IDs separate from the external media provider or research reference. That lets a reviewer find the evidence for each finding.

Assign the outside media task when policy requires it

An owner or administrator can add media review under Required external checks in Screening policies. Name the approved research process, question to answer and evidence to record. Publish the policy and select it for the customer workflow.

This creates a task for a reviewer with the right role; it does not make SanctionsKit search news sites. A no-match may still require the outside review and business approval. The automated screening result alone cannot show that all onboarding work is complete.

Verify identity and preserve the source's actual claim

Review sanctions candidates using the source facts. For a news report, first check whether it is about the same person or company. A shared name is not enough to attach a claim to your customer. Explain the facts that link the report to the party, or the gap that leaves it uncertain.

Save the news source, the date it was published, when the event took place and the reported status. Keep later corrections and uncertainty visible. Copies of one story are not separate proof. An allegation in a news story must not become an official sanctions finding in your notes.

Link the evidence where it is needed

Complete the external task with an evidence reference, or explain why it does not apply under policy. Use notes for context and an approved external reference for the controlled original assessment. The reference does not copy the original file into the case.

Use Add match evidence only for a relevant identity fact about the actual candidate, including where it came from. A case-level media attachment does not automatically become scored match evidence. Keep personal facts the review does not need out of general notes and notifications.

Keep both conclusions clear during approval

Save each source candidate's identity decision and separate business action. Finish outside checks and obtain independent approval when required. Dismissing the sanctions candidate does not settle the media question. A media concern also does not prove the customer is the listed identity.

Use review documentation to read the current case state for your app. API keys can route work but cannot complete a human external check or approve the investigation. Test outcomes that disagree before letting either status affect a customer decision.

Check dates, corrections and repeated reporting

When was the event, and what happened later? A story published today may concern an older event. Check for later corrections or a change in the case. Name the source of a claim and state what is still disputed or unknown.

Several sites may repeat one report. Find the original and describe what it supports. For example, five copies of the same allegation do not show that five teams verified it. A useful note records the relevant facts and gaps, not just a count of search results.

Frequently asked questions