AML/CFT platform · Slovakia and Czechia

What is verified

Having the document is only the beginning.

The folder contains a company extract and a power of attorney. What did they establish, and is it still current? AMLUM is designed to keep each finding with its explanation, source and date.

Arrange an introduction

Documents and evidence links

What does this document actually tell you?

Can Person B act for Client A? Compare what you can learn when supporting evidence is present, missing or conflicting.

Illustrative example

Illustration · claim → supporting document → review → is it current?

The document is linked to a specific question.

The power of attorney is linked to representation. The responsible person’s assessment is recorded.

Claim
Person B acts for Client A

Within a scope that needs supporting evidence.

Context
Supporting document
Illustrative power of attorney

Linked to the representation question.

Known information
Review
Assessment recorded by a person

Including what they assessed.

Known information
Is it current?
The document’s time context

Related to a specific assessment.

Known information
What this means

Linking and manually assessing a document does not, by itself, complete customer due diligence or approve the risk.

The claim lacks the evidence it needs.

The scope of representation has no supporting evidence. The question remains open.

Claim
Person B acts for Client A

The scope is not yet supported.

Context
Supporting document
Power of attorney missing

Relevant evidence needs to be obtained.

Missing information
Review
Assessment cannot be concluded

Evidence of the scope is unavailable.

Missing information
Is it current?
Cannot yet be assessed

The evidence must first be supplied.

Missing information
What this means

Missing evidence is an open task. It should remain visible in the overall case outcome.

Two documents describe different scopes.

The documents give different scopes of authority. Another file alone will not resolve the conflict.

Claim
Person B acts for Client A

The scope of representation is disputed.

Needs clarification
Supporting document
Two illustrative documents

Different information about the scope.

Needs clarification
Review
The discrepancy needs explanation

Assess the origin, content and context.

Needs clarification
Is it current?
Time context needs comparison

A later date alone does not explain every difference.

Needs clarification
What this means

The responsible person needs to assess the discrepancy and record the basis on which it was resolved.

Highlighted fields show what changed from the previous state.

Illustrative people, documents and states. This is not verification of an actual power of attorney, a provider response or automated document analysis.

In depthThe same name may belong to a different person.

When a name matches

The same name may belong to a different person.

A sanctions-list match or a politically exposed person (PEP) check first needs the right identity. The source and time of the check matter too.

Who is being checked

Assess a name match against the right identity: the client, representative or person in the ownership structure.

When, and against which source

Source and time distinguish a new finding from an old one. An unavailable source is not a negative result.

What happens next

A finding should lead to follow-up or professional assessment. A record does not replace the responsible person’s decision.

Available connections must be confirmed for a specific product introduction. This is not a promise of coverage across every source.

The basis for a decision

Do not leave a colleague guessing what was checked.

A power of attorney should retain the record of its assessed scope and validity at the time. A colleague can then see what was checked instead of having to infer the document’s relevance.

Questions before an introduction

Is a PEP or sanctions check enough?

It is one part of assessing a client. The proposed AMLUM workflow also covers identity, representation, ownership, relevant evidence and follow-up actions according to the case context.

What if a register is unavailable?

Unavailability is not a negative check result. The proposed workflow must distinguish it from a finding and make clear what still needs checking or supporting evidence.

Will AMLUM read documents automatically?

The planned core scope is based on linking evidence and recording a person’s assessment. Automatic content extraction using AI or OCR is outside this core scope.

Continue exploring

Who can act for the client

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

Who is behind the company

Follow ownership beyond the first company name.

Risk: reasoning and methodology

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

Turn a folder of documents into clearer questions.

Tell us where you currently look for evidence or an explanation. We can demonstrate AMLUM’s approach without receiving real client documents.

Arrange an introduction