Screen payments in real time, without slowing them down.

Screening runs inside the payment flow rather than as a separate step around it: originators, beneficiaries and counterparties are matched against sanctions and watchlists in real time as the payment moves, and agentic entity resolution resolves false matches before they reach your review queue. The real cost of payment screening is rarely the check itself. It is the false-positive holds, where a legitimate payment sits in a review queue while a customer waits and support tickets accumulate. Clearing name-variant and homonym noise before a hold is placed means fewer legitimate payments sit in a review queue, and the payments that do stop are more likely to carry a genuine risk signal worth a human decision. The alternative approaches both fail in practice: batch screening discovers a sanctioned party only after settlement, and loose matching thresholds trade missed exposure for speed, neither of which survives an examination.

The originator, the beneficiary and the counterparties in the flow are each matched against sanctions lists spanning OFAC, Canada, the EU, the UK, Australia and APAC regimes, including comprehensively sanctioned geographies, vessels, ports and restricted securities, plus trade restriction lists such as the US BIS lists, the World Bank Listing of Ineligible Firms and Individuals, and the Canada Export Controls List. Screening every party rather than just the customer side matters because exposure in a payment often sits on the far end of the transfer, with a beneficiary or intermediary the paying institution has never onboarded and holds no file on. Because payment screening runs on the same entity-resolution engine and the same data layer as customer and company screening, a party is evaluated against the same breadth of coverage regardless of which side of the payment it appears on, rather than payment fields being matched against a thinner list set than onboarding uses.

Each hold arrives with a plain-language rationale and the matching evidence already attached, so the reviewer starts from context rather than reconstructing why the payment stopped. The reviewer works the case in place: the match details, the conflicting evidence and the party history are in one record, and the release or escalation decision is documented as part of the same case rather than in a separate system. Every hold and release is recorded with its evidence and disposition, which is what lets payment screening stand up at examination time, since an examiner reviewing a sample of held payments can see specifically why each one stopped, what the reviewer considered, and why it was released or escalated. False matches cleared by entity resolution are also retained with the conflicting evidence that cleared them, so the record covers what did not stop the payment as well as what did.