WIREFRAME · non-functional design mockup · Compliance / AML Case-Adjudication · static illustrative data (Case CDD-2291) · customer data never leaves the bank's jurisdiction
Periodic EDD review · the bank's own in-country box

Case CDD-2291 — Meridian Trading Coöperatie U.A.

Synthetic customer · Reviewed by DiligenceWorks · sanctions, registry & adverse-media as of <24h
38integ.
Case-integrity score — how much of the proposed disposition the evidence supports. Low ⇒ escalate.
Retain · MEDIUM
RM's proposed disposition · close alerts, no SAR
Six adversarial checks — every claim in the file is treated as unverified
Identity & CDD Flag
Passport on file expired 2024; high-risk re-identification not completed at this periodic review.
CDD lapse — re-verify
Beneficial Ownership Reject
KvK + EU UBO-register show two holding-company layers (incl. a secrecy-jurisdiction entity) and an undisclosed 30% holder.
UBO unverified
Sanctions & PEP Reject
Re-screen match 0.93 ≥ 0.85 policy (name + alias + nationality; DOB ±1y) to an EU-designated associate.
Potential true match
Adverse Media Flag
File states “none”; screening returns a 2024 regulatory-probe report naming the customer's parent.
Undisclosed media
Source of Funds Flag
Declared €4.2M trading profits with no corroborating statements, contracts or tax filings on file.
SoF unverified
Risk Rating Reject
Rubric recompute from present factors yields HIGH; the file is assigned MEDIUM.
Under-rated → HIGH
Cards reveal in sequence during the demo. Status by pill + border, not colour alone: Pass = supported · Flag = escalate / request evidence · Reject = adjudication fails (hold / SAR). Every verdict is traceable (see audit drawer). No dollar figures — this is case adjudication, not a transaction-monitoring engine.
Exception report — claimed assertion vs supporting evidence
ItemCheckFindingClaimedSupportedRisk gapSource
UBOBeneficial OwnershipTwo holdco layers (incl. secrecy jurisdiction) + an undisclosed 30% holder → declared sole UBO not supported100% A. Petrov (NL)Layered; 2nd holder undisclosedcontrol opaque / UBO unverifiedKvK · EU UBO-register
ALR-1Sanctions & PEPRe-screen match 0.93 (name + alias + nationality; DOB ±1y) to an EU-designated associateFalse positive — different DOB≥ 0.85 false-positive thresholdpotential true matchEU/OFAC list · SCR-04
MediaAdverse Media2024 regulatory-probe report names the customer's parent — relevant and recentNo adverse mediaRelevant adverse media presentundisclosedAdverse-media · 2024 probe
SoFSource of Funds€4.2M trading profits with no corroborating documents on fileTrading profits €4.2MNo statements / contracts / taxunverified SoFSoF evidence set
CDDIdentity & CDDPassport expired 2024; high-risk re-identification not completed at periodic reviewIdentity verifiedNot currently verifiedCDD lapseID-verify · policy CDD
RatingRisk RatingPresent factors (secrecy layer + sanctions match + cash-intensive + media + SoF gap) compute to HIGHMEDIUMHIGH (computed)under-ratedpolicy risk-rubric
Adjudication: 3 escalate · 3 reject-grade (of 6 checks) · proposed disposition unsupported — flips MEDIUM → HIGH, close → SAR-candidatebefore clearing
Recommended disposition
0
Clear
3
Escalate · EDD
3
SAR / Block
Reporting trigger: SAR candidate — a potential true sanctions match plus an unverified UBO meets the bank's SAR-trigger rules (Wwft / FIU-Nederland). Hold both alerts open; do not clear.
Export audit trail (PDF) Generate SAR pack (stub) Send to case system / goAML (stub) Accept / override flags
Audit drawer (on click): Source = EU/OFAC consolidated list · entry EU-2024-xxxx; re-screen match 0.93 ≥ policy threshold 0.85 (SCR-04); alias + nationality match; DOB within ±1y tolerance. The file's “different DOB” basis does not meet the false-positive bar. Recommendation: do not close — treat as a potential true match; SAR candidate; request UBO + source-of-funds evidence (RFI).
Why self-hosted (the wedge): the customer file, watchlist hits and adverse media are adjudicated entirely on the bank's own in-country box — nothing touches a US multi-tenant cloud, which is what makes DW usable where Schrems II / CBUAE / SAMA rule out SaaS AML tools. DW is the case / EDD / SAR / sanctions-adjudication layer; it sits alongside the bank's transaction-monitoring engine, it does not replace it.

Adjudication backlog — this bank

38%
of 214 periodic EDD cases adjudicated YTD required re-rating or escalation — the centralized, audit-ready record an examiner asks to see, and that lean teams keep in spreadsheets and email.
Bars = cases escalated per month · amber = above the bank's escalation-rate threshold.
Mockup only — illustrative figures, no live engine. Final figures come from the six-check engine per DESIGN-compliance-aml-case-adjudication-verification.md. Scope: KYC/EDD, sanctions/PEP & adverse-media adjudication and SAR drafting — not real-time transaction monitoring.