The Match That Wasn't Quite a Match
A mid-sized asset manager's automated screening tool flags a new client, 'A. Karimov', as a 92% match to a designated individual on a consolidated sanctions list. The client is a 54-year-old national of a neighbouring country, whereas the listed person is recorded as born in a different year and holding a different nationality. The tool flags on name similarity alone because the date-of-birth field in the client record is blank. The relationship manager is under pressure to onboard before quarter-end and proposes overriding the alert as a 'false positive' with a one-line note. The firm's policy says alerts must be resolved by an analyst independent of the front office, but the firm has only two compliance staff and one is on leave. The client has also asked to fund the account from a third-party source.
1. Is the alert a false positive? What is the correct disposition and why does the blank DOB matter?
Read the worked answer
It cannot yet be classified as a false positive - it is an unresolved alert, and the disposition is 'escalate / obtain information', not 'override'.
Reasoning:
- A 92% name match with no DOB is a potential match. Name-only screening generates high false-positive rates, but the absence of DOB means the firm lacks the discriminating data needed to clear it.
- The nationality and birth-year differences are indicators of a false positive, not proof. Names transliterate inconsistently; the listed person's recorded details may be incomplete.
- The blank DOB is the crux: the firm cannot claim it verified a mismatch when one side of the comparison is empty. Clearing on name similarity alone is an unsupported decision.
Correct disposition: hold onboarding, obtain the client's full identity data (DOB, nationality, place of birth, ID document), re-screen, and document the comparison. Only then can a reasoned false-positive determination be made.
2. The relationship manager wants to override the alert because of staffing constraints. What governance failures does this reveal, and how should the firm handle the third-party funding request?
Read the worked answer
Governance failures:
- Segregation of duties breached: front office proposing to clear its own alert defeats the independent-review control. Staffing shortages are an operational risk to be managed (e.g. escalate to the MLRO, engage temporary resource), not a reason to waive the control.
- Inadequate rationale: a one-line note is not an auditable record of a sanctions decision.
- Single point of failure: two compliance staff with no cover is a design weakness; the firm should document a contingency and consider outsourcing screening review.
Third-party funding: treat as an independent red flag. A client asking to fund from a third party raises source-of-funds and possible nominee/beneficial-ownership concerns, and could itself be an attempt to move funds for a designated person. The firm should require identification of the funding source, screen that party, and refuse funding from unidentified third parties. Both issues should be documented and, if the client cannot explain, the relationship declined.