Sanctions case management: from possible match to decision

A case records the work after the screening

Sanctions case management gives your team one place to investigate a possible match and explain its decision. In SanctionsKit, open Review queue in the dashboard. Check the subject, selected sources and current screening. The case records human review; the original automated result stays separate.

Potential matches with standard retention create cases. A no-match can also need a case when a policy requires outside checks or business approval. Developers can find it with GET /api/v1/cases?screeningId=ID and read GET /api/v1/investigations/{caseId} for the current detail.

Give each candidate its own identity decision

Compare the source names, IDs, dates and references with the submitted facts. Read what agrees, conflicts or remains unknown. Use Add match evidence for new identity facts and explain where they came from. General case notes add context but do not automatically become match evidence.

Two candidates need two conclusions. Ruling out one does not resolve the other. A missing date or ID is unknown rather than a conflict. Use the investigation guide to choose the next useful fact instead of repeating the same name search.

Separate identity from the business action

Choose Same person or entity, Different person or entity, or leave Unresolved identity. Then record the business action under your policy, such as Allow under internal policy, Restrict relationship or Escalate decision. Explain the evidence and reasoning for the action.

A confirmed identity still leaves the relevant activity restrictions to assess. An escalated decision remains open work. API keys can read saved decisions, but a permitted human session is required to make match decisions, add comments, complete outside checks or give approval.

Finish outside checks and any second review

Complete required external checks with evidence, or record why a check does not apply. SanctionsKit tracks those tasks but does not perform the ownership or other research named by them. Review the saved identity findings and business action before submitting.

If the policy or organization requires independent approval, a different eligible person must review the submission. The analyst cannot approve their own work. A case waiting for approval is not finished. Acknowledging a monitoring event also does not complete its linked case.

Use the current case when evidence changes

Read the latest screening and review state before relying on an earlier conclusion. A correction to the screened identity creates a replacement screening and case while preserving the earlier history. New evidence may leave work open even when an old case was complete.

Use the evidence guide to retrieve the right case record and the decision-note guide to explain it clearly. The synthetic demo is a place to practice the comparison without real customer information.

Make the handoff specific

Tell the next person which question they need to answer and link the evidence already gathered. A handoff should stop them from repeating work or mistaking an empty note for approval. The checklist below covers the case, missing fact, owner and outstanding business decision.

• Case and customer references, including the role of the screened subject.
• The candidate still at issue and the precise fact that remains unknown.
• Evidence already considered and why it did not settle the comparison.
• The requested action, responsible person and policy-based due date.
• Any separate business restriction or approval that remains pending.

Frequently asked questions