Japan · Risk assessment

Customer and Entity Risk Assessment for Japan

Rate every customer and entity against the factors your business faces in Japan, let the rating drive due diligence and review frequency, and show how each rating was reached.

Last updated

What this covers

  • Configurable risk factors and weights
  • Geography, product, channel and customer type
  • Ratings that set due diligence and review frequency
  • Similar customers reviewed when one is rated up
  • A reason recorded for every rating

Screening in production for

  • Tradeview Markets
  • Zappit
  • AMP
  • BancABC
  • BMG
  • BTC
  • CMC Markets
  • Coop
  • CSC
  • EFICA
  • EML
  • Groupama
  • MEO
  • Riskified
  • Securiport
  • Tanzania Commercial Bank
The Japan-specific problem

A risk rating the FSA cannot follow is not evidence.

The FSA guidelines judge compliance on effectiveness, not on whether a procedure document exists, and they tie review frequency and due diligence to risk. That makes the rating the hinge of the whole programme: it has to be applied to every customer, respond to new information, and show its working. A rating held in a spreadsheet and revisited once a year does none of those.

Customer risk assessment in Japan
  • Every customer rated, with the factors and weights recorded
  • Review frequency and due diligence set by the rating, not by habit
  • Comparable customers re-assessed when one is rated up
  • Domestic political exposure included where your own assessment judges it a risk
Capabilities

What you get.

A rating for every customer

The FSA expects a customer risk assessment for every customer, not only those who look unusual. Ratings are produced consistently across the whole book from the factors you set.

Factors that fit the Japanese market

Weight geography, product, channel, customer type and screening results to your own risk assessment, including designated countries and foreign PEP exposure.

Rating drives the response

A higher rating triggers enhanced due diligence, tighter monitoring thresholds and more frequent review, which is the proportionate response the FSA guidelines describe.

Portfolio view of a finding

The guidelines ask whether other customers with similar attributes should receive a stricter rating. Ratings can be re-run across comparable customers when one is rated up.

Explainable methodology

Each rating records the factors and weights behind it, so a reviewer or supervisor can see how it was reached.

Scope

What you can screen.

  • Customer and entity risk ratings
  • Geographic and designated-country exposure
  • Foreign PEP exposure and controlled companies
  • Product, channel and customer type risk
  • Review frequency set by the rating
1,000+
Global watchlists screened
<1s
Average screening response
24h
Watchlist refresh cycle
195
Countries covered
Assurance

What your security review will ask for.

99.98%
System uptime
<24h
Average integration time
24–48h
Signed to production account
<1s
Average screening response
  • ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certifiedISO/IEC 27001:2022Information security management, independently audited.
  • ISO/IEC 27701:2019 certifiedISO/IEC 27701:2019Privacy information management, extending ISO 27001.
  • GDPR — EU General Data Protection RegulationGDPRPersonal data handled to EU standards, wherever you operate.
  • DORA — EU Digital Operational Resilience ActDORAOperational resilience for EU financial entities and their vendors.
Questions

Common questions.

Does the FSA require a risk assessment for every customer?

Yes. The FSA requires a customer risk assessment for every customer, and a firm that identifies a risk in its own business, such as domestic political exposure, is expected to mitigate it.

How do the FSA guidelines relate to the APTCP?

The Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds sets what must be done: verification, records and suspicious transaction reports. The FSA guidelines set how the supervisor judges whether it was done well, through a risk-based approach assessed on effectiveness.

Can we use our own risk methodology?

Yes. Risk factors and weights are configurable, so ratings reflect the methodology your business has adopted rather than a fixed template.

How is this different from the global risk assessment page?

The product is the same. This page covers how it applies in Japan: the FSA's expectation of a rating for every customer, rating-driven review, and the portfolio view of a finding. The global page describes the product for every market.

See MemberCheck in action.

A short walkthrough of screening, verification and ongoing monitoring in one platform, set to the thresholds and jurisdictions your programme actually uses.