OFAC screening vs AML: what each check tells you

OFAC screening answers a narrower question

OFAC screening looks for a party in selected OFAC sources. AML work can also examine how an account is used and whether other customer checks are complete. A clean name search cannot explain an unusual payment. Ordinary payment activity cannot rule out a sanctions match.

In SanctionsKit, start with the customer identity gathered during onboarding. Open New screening in the dashboard and choose the subject type. An API request sends known facts under subject and an operation reference under reference. The screening API guide gives the full request.

Be specific about the OFAC lists

Check your policy before choosing coverage. ofac-sdn and ofac-non-sdn are separate source IDs; choosing one does not select both. GET /api/v1/sources shows current availability, supported uses, freshness and qualification. Keep the selected coverage with the completed check.

When a candidate appears, retain its underlying list and program. A non-SDN result needs an assessment of that list's own restrictions. Sending a single 'OFAC blocked' flag to your AML system hides details the reviewer needs. Send the source references and the actual result instead.

Resolve the match, then decide the business action

In Review queue, compare the source facts with the customer. Save a supported identity decision for each candidate. Record the business action separately. A name score helps explain why a record was found; it does not decide which legal restrictions apply.

Use required external checks in Screening policies for work done elsewhere. Add evidence references after that work is complete. Obtain independent approval when required. A review submitted for approval is still waiting for a decision, even if the analyst has finished writing it.

Link the two workflows without merging their outcomes

Your system can connect the screening ID and case ID to a separate AML case. Read GET /api/v1/investigations/{caseId} for the current review state. Keep the original screening result intact. API keys can read human decisions but cannot make or approve them.

Test this with invented cases. Let an OFAC check return no_match while an activity review remains open. Then try a possible OFAC match with no unusual activity. Neither process should close the other. A failed source check must keep the sanctions task incomplete.

Compare identity, restrictions and activity

A sanctions candidate first raises an identity question: is this the listed party? If so, the proposed activity needs a restrictions assessment. An activity alert may concern a payment pattern even when neither party has a list match. Identity verification asks whether the customer's claimed details are reliable.

Imagine a fictional customer who has no OFAC candidate but makes an unexplained set of payments. The no-match tells the investigator what the selected list check found. It says nothing about why the payments occurred. Keeping that limit clear prevents a useful result from becoming a misleading approval.

Put the distinction into your integration

Run an authenticated synthetic request with the API quickstart. Use customer screening to link results to a saved relationship. Add Monitoring if repeat checks are required, and assign someone to handle new events.

Keep identity verification, transaction monitoring and reporting in the systems that perform them. SanctionsKit supplies the selected-source check and its review. Your application should name that completed step clearly, rather than calling the entire AML process complete.

Frequently asked questions