PEP and Sanctions Screening

Yes. You set matching thresholds, fuzzy-matching sensitivity, and secondary identifiers such as date of birth or country to your own risk appetite, so weak coincidental matches are filtered out while genuine hits still surface. Match rules are yours to set, not fixed.

Both. Screen a single customer at onboarding through the API for a sub-second response, or run your entire book in batch. Both paths use the same lists and the same matching logic.

Yes. Ongoing monitoring re-screens your customer base automatically as sanctions and PEP lists change, so a previously cleared customer is reviewed again the moment a new listing affects them.

MemberCheck screens against over 1,000 sanctions, PEP, and watchlist sources, refreshed on a 24-hour cycle, covering 195 countries.

FATF Recommendation 12 splits PEPs three ways: foreign PEPs, who hold a prominent public function in another country; domestic PEPs, who hold one at home; and people entrusted with a prominent function by an international organisation. Relatives and close associates are treated alongside them. Jurisdictions apply the categories differently, so a customer in scope in one country may not be in another.

Yes. A PEP's family members and known close associates carry related risk, because they are the obvious route for holding assets at one remove. They are screened as part of the same check rather than as a separate exercise.

Screening covers the major consolidated regimes including OFAC in the United States, the United Nations Security Council list, the European Union consolidated list and HM Treasury in the United Kingdom, alongside national lists and watchlists. Coverage by country is set out on the country coverage pages.

Names transliterated from Arabic, Cyrillic, Chinese or Japanese scripts rarely match character for character, which is where a name-only check fails. Fuzzy matching handles spelling variants, phonetic similarity and alternative transliterations, and secondary identifiers narrow what remains.

A regulator asks what was screened, what matched, what the analyst concluded and on what evidence. Each match keeps its source list, its score, the identifiers used, the assignee and the decision that closed it, so the record answers the question without reconstruction.

Yes. A single threshold across the whole book either buries analysts in low-risk noise or sets the bar too high for higher-risk segments. Matching is configured per segment so the setting follows the risk rather than the average.