KYC and AML Compliance Software Development

Document capture and automated verification is integrated with your chosen identity verification provider -- Onfido, Jumio, or Persona -- with the specific provider selected during discovery based on your geographic coverage requirements and existing vendor relationships. Liveness check is included in the onboarding flow to prevent document spoofing, requiring the applicant to complete a short biometric check that confirms the person presenting the document is present at the time of verification. Data extracted from the verified document -- name, date of birth, document number, expiry -- populates the customer record automatically rather than requiring manual re-entry. PEP screening runs against commercial databases at the point of onboarding, returning match results with the match source and confidence score for the compliance officer to review. Sanctions screening checks against OFAC, UN consolidated, EU consolidated, and HMT lists at onboarding, with the match result and list source recorded. KYC status is stored against the customer record with the decision reason, the officer who approved it, and the expiry date that triggers the re-verification workflow.

Periodic re-verification is triggered automatically by customer risk tier rather than managed manually by the compliance team. Enhanced due diligence customers are flagged for re-verification annually, standard customers every three years, and the re-verification workflow routes to a compliance officer with the current customer record, the documents on file, and the re-verification request assembled in one view. Adverse media screening connects to the customer record and generates an alert when a credible result is returned for the customer's name and jurisdiction, with the alert including the source, date, and headline so the analyst can assess relevance without navigating to a separate system. PEP and sanctions re-screening runs on a scheduled basis and additionally on regulatory list updates, so a customer who was not a PEP at onboarding is caught promptly if they are added to a list. Trigger-based enhanced due diligence activates when a customer's transaction pattern changes materially -- a significant increase in transaction volume, new counterparties in high-risk jurisdictions, or a change in transaction type -- routing the case to a senior compliance officer with the triggering behaviour summarised. Re-verification workflow produces a decision record with the outcome, reason, and officer identity retained for regulatory audit.

Rule-based monitoring is configured to your institution's specific risk appetite rather than applied as a generic default. Velocity rules flag accounts exceeding a transaction count or volume threshold in a defined period. Threshold rules flag individual transactions above a configured amount. Structuring pattern detection identifies sequences of transactions designed to stay below reporting thresholds -- the classic smurfing pattern -- by analysing transaction sequences across accounts rather than individual transactions in isolation. Geographic risk rules flag transactions involving counterparties in high-risk or sanctioned jurisdictions as defined by your compliance policy. Peer group deviation analysis compares a customer's transaction pattern against a cohort with similar account type and transaction history, flagging accounts that deviate significantly without requiring a threshold trigger to be hit. An ML anomaly detection layer runs in parallel with the rule-based system, identifying transaction patterns that don't match the customer's own historical behaviour and surfacing them as anomaly alerts with a confidence score, which reduces the dependency on threshold rules catching every pattern.

The alert queue presents alerts ranked by risk score rather than in chronological order, so the highest-priority cases reach an analyst first regardless of when the alert was generated. Case assignment distributes alerts to compliance analysts with workload balancing, ensuring no analyst holds a disproportionate queue while others have capacity. The case investigation view assembles the customer profile, recent transaction history, KYC status, adverse media results, and prior case history into a single view so the analyst has the context needed to make a decision without pulling information from multiple systems. Internal escalation routes cases above a defined risk threshold to a senior compliance officer, with the escalation reason and the originating analyst's notes transferred with the case. Case disposition records the decision -- closed no action, escalated to MLRO, filed as SAR -- with the reason stated in free text and a structured reason code for reporting purposes. False positive tracking records the rule or anomaly model that generated each alert that is closed as a false positive, producing the data needed to calibrate rules and reduce alert volume over time without removing coverage.

SAR drafting workflow is triggered from a case that has been reviewed and determined to meet the filing threshold, opening a structured form pre-populated with the subject's identity data, account details, and the transaction narrative assembled from the case record. Internal review and approval by the Money Laundering Reporting Officer is enforced before the SAR can be submitted -- the MLRO receives a notification, reviews the draft in the platform, and approves or returns it with comments. Submission is formatted to the regulatory standard for your jurisdiction: FinCEN BSA E-Filing for US institutions, SOCA goAML for UK institutions, and AUSTRAC Online for Australian institutions, with the formatted submission generated automatically from the approved SAR record rather than requiring manual form completion. Tipping-off control prevents the SAR subject from being notified that a filing has been made -- the case is marked as filed but the filing event is not surfaced to any system or interface accessible to the customer or customer-facing staff. The SAR register records each filing with the submission date, the regulatory reference number returned on acceptance, and the case linkage so the filing can be retrieved quickly if the regulator follows up. The MLRO dashboard shows filing volumes by period, cases pending MLRO approval, and the time from alert generation to SAR submission for performance monitoring.

Risk score calculation runs at onboarding using the customer's type, country of residence, source of funds declaration, product selected, and initial transaction profile, producing a risk score that determines the initial risk tier assignment. Risk tier assignment -- low, medium, high, enhanced due diligence -- drives the monitoring intensity applied to the account, the review frequency for re-verification, and the level of due diligence required at onboarding. Risk score recalculation triggers on significant account events: a new high-risk counterparty, a material increase in transaction volume, a product change, or an adverse media alert, so the risk tier reflects current behaviour rather than the onboarding snapshot. Risk score history is retained per customer so the compliance team and regulators can see how the risk assessment has changed over time and what events drove each change. Management reporting shows risk tier distribution across the full customer book by segment, product, and geography, giving the compliance function the view it needs to allocate monitoring resources and report to the board risk committee. Risk score thresholds, weighting by factor, and tier boundaries are configurable by your compliance team through an admin interface without requiring a code change, so the model can be recalibrated as your customer base and regulatory guidance evolve.