Practical guide
AML case management: hand over a sanctions review clearly
Connect sanctions evidence and analyst decisions to an AML case while keeping identity findings, activity reviews, and approvals clear.
On this page
Give the AML investigator a clear sanctions record
An AML investigator may need to know what a sanctions check found and why the analyst reached a decision. SanctionsKit keeps the submitted subject, source records, match evidence, human decisions and approval together. It is not a payment-investigation or regulatory-filing system.
Open Review queue in the dashboard. Confirm the customer and screening reference before reading the case. An integration can find linked cases with GET /api/v1/cases?screeningId=ID and read the current review with GET /api/v1/investigations/{caseId}. Use the current case, not an old status copied into a note.
Reach a supported conclusion for each candidate
Compare the source record with the submitted customer facts. Use Add match evidence for facts that support the identity, conflict with it or leave it uncertain. A general case note can explain context, but it does not change the scored evidence for a candidate.
Record each identity decision and the separate business action. When the facts are not enough, leave the identity unresolved or send the decision to the right owner. Ruling out one candidate does not resolve another candidate or an unrelated AML finding.
Keep outside work and original documents linked
A policy can require an outside task, such as an ownership assessment. Record it as complete with an evidence reference, or explain why it does not apply. SanctionsKit tracks the task. Your team or another service performs the assessment.
Use approved external document references for supporting records. Include the version, where the document came from and its verification status. The original file stays in that storage service with its own access and retention rules. Keep only the necessary context in case comments.
Hand over the current decision and its scope
Finish required checks, record the business action and submit the review. Wait for a different eligible approver if approval is required. Submitted or escalated work is still open. If a case was reopened or replaced, read the current record before passing a conclusion onward.
Through your approved integration, pass the subject reference, screening ID, case ID, source references and current review state to the AML system. Explain what the conclusion covers. API clients can read this state and send work to people; they cannot submit or approve human decisions.
Let linked investigations finish at different times
In a fictional case, the sanctions analyst rules out a same-name candidate using a reliable birth date from the relevant records. The AML investigator is still asking about unusual payments. The identity comparison can finish while the payment investigation stays open.
A useful handoff names the dismissed candidate, evidence, decision date and remaining limits. Avoid calling the customer universally cleared. When evaluating case-management software, check that staff can find linked work without being forced to give distinct investigations the same outcome.
Test whether another person can follow the record
Ask an authorized colleague to use the case report and evidence to explain the sanctions decision. They should find the source facts and reasoning without having to call its author. Keep wider activity findings in the system responsible for them and link the reference rather than copying sensitive case details into general notes.
Use the decision-note guide, then test a sanctions dismissal while an AML case remains open. The sanctions evidence should still be easy to find. Its status change must not silently close the other investigation.
Sources and references
Authority and technical sources
SanctionsKit documentation
Frequently asked questions
What belongs in a sanctions handoff to an AML investigator?
Include the subject, screening and case references, source records, current review state and the evidence behind the conclusion. State what remains unresolved. This lets the next person use the decision without treating it as approval for every part of the relationship.
Can a case note replace evidence attached to a candidate?
No. Use Add match evidence for identifying facts tied to the candidate. General case notes explain wider context but do not automatically become scored match evidence. Put the fact where the reviewer will use it.
Should sanctions and payment investigations always close together?
No. They can concern different facts and require different evidence. A sanctions identity decision may be complete while a payment question remains open. Keep each state visible and let your approved process govern the business action.
Can an API integration approve the analyst's sanctions decision?
No. API clients can read current case state and route work. Human decisions and approvals require permitted human sessions. A case waiting for a second person remains pending until that approval is complete.