Investigate with context
Compare names and aliases alongside available identifiers and source-specific facts. See supporting evidence and known conflicts together before recording a decision.
Sanctions screening for compliance teams
Investigate potential matches with the evidence in view.
Work in a compliance dashboard with individual screening, bulk uploads, a shared review queue, and retained evidence. Your plan also includes an API so applications can submit subjects into the same workflow.
API and compliance dashboard included in every plan.
SanctionsKitIllustrative workflow
Potential match
Your subject
Names & aliases
Available identifiers
Dates & locations
Source record
Names & aliases
Available identifiers
Dates & locations
Compare supporting facts and conflicts.
Record the evidence behind your decision.
Open Confirm or dismiss with a note
Built around your work
A matching name is only the beginning.
Reviewers need to compare identities, understand the selected lists, and explain their reasoning. SanctionsKit organizes the evidence around that work: the matched fields, known conflicts, original source references, and the scope of the screening.
Make the reasoning visible
Record analyst decisions with explanatory notes. Keep later decisions separate from the original screening so another reviewer can follow the history.
Revisit changing evidence
Monitor selected subjects and bring relevant changes back into review. A previous dismissal remains part of the history without becoming a permanent instruction to ignore new facts.
A practical use case
Two similar names. A decision that needs supporting facts.
A name may resemble a listed person while dates, identifiers, or locations tell a different story. The reviewer needs to see both the supporting evidence and the conflicts.
The review challenge
A score alone leaves the analyst reconstructing why a record appeared and what the screening covered.
How SanctionsKit helps
Compare the available source fields, document the uncertainty, and append a reasoned decision to the case history.
- 01
Define the screening scope
Agree which available sources belong in your workflow. Review their purpose and limitations with the team that owns the policy.
- 02
Compare the underlying evidence
Open a potential match and inspect the fields behind it. Escalate incomplete identities or unresolved conflicts through your review process.
- 03
Record and retain the decision
Explain the evidence considered and export retained screening records. Choose retention settings that fit your organization’s recordkeeping process.
Evaluate the fit
Questions from your team.
What helps a reviewer assess a potential sanctions match?
The result includes matching explanations, available identifiers, conflicting information, source references, and versions. These facts support identity review; a similarity score is not a legal determination.
Can our team record why a match was dismissed?
Yes. Case review supports analyst decisions and explanatory notes. Later decisions are appended to the history, keeping the original result distinguishable from the organization’s judgment.
Can I share SanctionsKit with my engineering team?
The developer product page and quickstart give engineers a direct introduction to the request contract, response structure, and integration paths. Use the free demonstration to agree on the review experience together.
See SanctionsKit in action
See how a potential match becomes a reviewable case.
Try the interactive demo with synthetic examples. Compare plans for your team’s screening volume.