AML/CFT platform · Slovakia and Czechia

How it works

A clear path through a client review.

Get to know the client, check the connections that matter and decide how to proceed. Explore AMLUM’s planned workflow in six stages, with the professional detail available within each.

Arrange an introduction

Six stages, one case

Each stage has a clear purpose.

Open the stage that interests you. A case is not always a straight line: circumstances may bring you back to an earlier check.

Establish

Who you are working with and what the deal involves.

  1. Organisation and legal profile

    Start with your organisation: jurisdiction, legal status and services. These determine which AML questions and procedures apply to the case.

  2. The client and the particular case

    The client is the subject of the checks, distinct from the organisation using AMLUM. The case connects that client to a business relationship, transaction and people in their respective roles.

  3. Questions for the situation

    For a representative, you ask about authority to act; for a payment, about the relevant transaction circumstances. Questions are designed around the profile, service, client type and situation.

Verify

What the evidence supports and what is still missing.

  1. Identity and verification

    A name or stored file is not enough. For an individual or company, establish which identity details are supported, by what evidence and whether they remain current.

  2. PEP, sanctions and sources

    PEP and sanctions procedures link checks to the correct subject, source and time. Relevant matches need assessment. An unavailable register is not a negative result; individual online sources are confirmed separately.

  3. Documents linked to findings

    A document should support a particular finding or action. An authorised employee carries out required manual verification. A verified document alone does not mean completed customer due diligence (CDD) or an approved risk assessment.

Understand

Who represents the company and who is behind it.

  1. Who may act, and for whom

    For directors, authorised representatives, guardians and legal representatives, including those acting for minors, the basis and scope of authority matter. The person acting for a client has a distinct role; a director is not automatically a beneficial owner.

  2. Ownership and effective control

    In the model, Company B owns Client A. Indirect relationships and ultimate control also need supporting sources. When identifying the beneficial owner, anything that cannot be reliably established must remain visible.

  3. The transaction and payment in context

    Payment method, participants, amount and purpose are considered within the business relationship. Attaching a file to a payment is optional in the proposed first version; the evidence informs the assessment.

Assess

Which circumstances need your attention.

  1. Risk and the reasons behind it

    The Risk Engine in development is based on approved factors and rules relevant to the case. Accepted, current and legitimately usable evidence should explain the result and show what is missing.

Act

What to add and where a person needs to decide.

  1. Actions after assessment

    Depending on the methodology and legal conditions, further information, enhanced due diligence, approval, review or a restriction on proceeding may follow. Responsible people carry out the human actions required.

Demonstrate

Keep the reason with the result for the next person.

  1. History and updates

    When returning to a case, you need to know who acted, with which authority and on which version of the evidence. The history is designed to distinguish the earlier assessment from new findings that may require an update.

An overview of the journey; the actual procedure depends on legal profile, service and case.

Illustrative situation

A familiar company. A new person at the meeting.

A different representative starts acting for Client A. The company is the same, but the new person’s identity and authority need checking.

A fresh assessment needs its own evidence. AMLUM is designed to retain the earlier decision and its reasons, keeping new information distinct from the past.

This scenario illustrates the principle. It is not the outcome of a real client case.

Continue exploring

Who can act for the client

Distinguish the person in the meeting, the client and their authority.

What the evidence actually supports

The finding, its source and whether it is still current.

Risk: reasoning and methodology

What mattered, what is missing and what follows from the assessment.

Walk through a familiar case.

There is no need to prepare a workflow or specialist questions. Describe your work and where a clearer view would help.

Arrange an introduction