Identify the relevant legal parties
Map investors, entities, representatives, and counterparties according to policy. Do not substitute an administrator’s name or a fund brand for the contracting identity.
Sanctions screening for investment management
Keep investor identity and investment decisions separate.
Screen selected investors, clients, and counterparties with source-specific evidence, documented review, and monitoring linked to the continuing relationship.
API and compliance dashboard included in every plan.
SanctionsKitIllustrative workflow
Customer relationship review
Customer
Related entity
Separate subjects. Traceable results.Coverage · matched evidence · review notes
Ownership and wider due diligence need their own review.
Built around your work
A fund name may not identify the investor’s legal entity.
Subscriptions, mandates, intermediaries, and payment instructions can involve different legal parties. The team needs to identify what was actually screened and retain separate ownership, source-of-funds, and investment assessments.
Preserve evidence for candidate review
Compare the submitted subject with source records and record supporting, conflicting, and unknown facts. Keep identity conclusions separate from investment suitability and legal eligibility.
Keep selected relationships under review
Connect continuing subjects to documented monitoring and update retained identity details when reliable information changes. Assign new evidence and screening issues.
A practical use case
Keep investor identity and investment decisions separate.
Screen selected investors, clients, and counterparties with source-specific evidence, documented review, and monitoring linked to the continuing relationship.
The review challenge
Subscriptions, mandates, intermediaries, and payment instructions can involve different legal parties. The team needs to identify what was actually screened and retain separate ownership, source-of-funds, and investment assessments.
How SanctionsKit helps
Map investors, entities, representatives, and counterparties according to policy. Do not substitute an administrator’s name or a fund brand for the contracting identity. Compare the submitted subject with source records and record supporting, conflicting, and unknown facts. Keep identity conclusions separate from investment suitability and legal eligibility.
- 01
Define the relationship and checkpoint
Map subscriptions, client onboarding, party changes, or other policy-defined events. Verify applicable obligations for the actual type of adviser or institution.
- 02
Screen with explicit coverage
Use supported sources and preserve the result reference with the client or investor file. Treat unavailable coverage as incomplete.
- 03
Retain decisions and follow-up
Record the identity comparison, required approvals, and separate business action. Keep ongoing changes linked to the prior evidence.
Evaluate the fit
Screening questions for investment management.
Does this determine investment eligibility?
No. It does not assess suitability, accreditation, securities restrictions, or whether a particular investment activity is authorized.
Does this replace beneficial-ownership research?
No. Screen identified parties as appropriate, but obtain and evaluate ownership evidence through a separate process.
Are all investment advisers under identical current AML duties?
No. Applicability and effective dates depend on the institution and rule. Check current FinCEN requirements with the responsible legal and compliance team.
Does a custodian’s process cover all of our checks?
Determine the actual scope, records available, and exception handling. Do not infer complete coverage from using a custodian or administrator.
See SanctionsKit in action
Explore screening and review for investment management.
Try the interactive demo with synthetic examples. Compare plans for your team’s screening volume.