Identify the right parties
Screen each relevant person or legal organization under your lending policy. Do not treat a co-signer or beneficial owner as an alias of the borrower.
OFAC screening for lenders
Keep the borrower, co-signer, and payee distinct.
Add sanctions screening to lending checkpoints with separate party records, structured candidate evidence, and a clear handoff for unresolved identities.
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
The application is not always the whole party set.
A loan file can change between application and funding. A co-signer, legal borrower, or payment recipient may be added later. A search tied only to the original contact name can leave the final file without the intended coverage.
Keep underwriting and identity review separate
A credit decision does not resolve a sanctions candidate. Give reviewers the source context and reliable identifying evidence without changing the underwriting record into a sanctions verdict.
Preserve the funding-stage handoff
Keep screening references with the loan file so the authorized team can see which identity version was checked and which questions remain open.
A practical use case
Keep the borrower, co-signer, and payee distinct.
Add sanctions screening to lending checkpoints with separate party records, structured candidate evidence, and a clear handoff for unresolved identities.
The review challenge
A loan file can change between application and funding. A co-signer, legal borrower, or payment recipient may be added later. A search tied only to the original contact name can leave the final file without the intended coverage.
How SanctionsKit helps
Screen each relevant person or legal organization under your lending policy. Do not treat a co-signer or beneficial owner as an alias of the borrower. A credit decision does not resolve a sanctions candidate. Give reviewers the source context and reliable identifying evidence without changing the underwriting record into a sanctions verdict.
- 01
Define lending checkpoints
Map application, identity correction, party changes, and funding events under your approved process. State what happens when required source coverage is unavailable.
- 02
Review candidates deliberately
Compare the known borrower or related-party details with the actual source record. Keep unresolved identity questions separate from credit and fraud findings.
- 03
Record the decision and changes
Retain reasoning and approvals, then connect selected ongoing relationships to monitoring where appropriate. Record a new check when the legal party changes.
Evaluate the fit
Screening questions for lending.
Does this perform credit underwriting?
No. Sanctions screening compares submitted identities with selected sources. Credit risk, affordability, fraud, and other lending decisions remain separate.
Can we screen co-signers and business borrowers?
Yes, using distinct subjects and the appropriate supported entity types. Your policy determines which related parties are in scope.
Does a no-match result authorize funding?
No. It describes the completed screening within selected coverage. The lender remains responsible for its wider funding and compliance decision.
Can the API support a loan application workflow?
Yes. Use explicit paths for potential matches, completed no matches, and incomplete checks. Keep credentials on the server and retain the screening ID with the internal file.
See SanctionsKit in action
Explore screening and review for lending.
Try the interactive demo with synthetic examples. Compare plans for your team’s screening volume.