A screening hit at 16:55 on a Friday
At 16:55 on a Friday, a bank's automated screening tool generates a hit: existing customer Ali Hassan, a 62-year-old retired schoolteacher, matches 87% to a name on the UNSC consolidated sanctions list. The listed person is 41 years old and resident in another country; the customer has been with the bank for eight years and receives a pension. A PKR 3.2 million transfer to a registered charity is pending. The branch operations officer says the match is obvious nonsense and wants to release the payment before close of business. The compliance officer is unavailable, and the branch manager asks you, the duty AML analyst, to decide. The bank's screening policy says 'potential matches must be investigated' but does not specify a freeze procedure. The customer calls twice asking why his transfer is delayed.
1. Set out your immediate actions on the screening hit and explain how you would determine whether it is a true match or a false positive.
Read the worked answer
The first action is to stop the transfer from being released. A screening hit is not proof of a match, but releasing funds before resolution creates a risk that the bank makes funds available to a designated person or entity. The branch should be instructed that the payment is on hold pending compliance review and should not be told that the delay is due to sanctions screening. The second action is to compare identifiers, not just the name. The name match is 87%, but the customer is 62 and the listed person is 41; the customer is a retired schoolteacher with a pension, while the listed person is resident in another country. The analyst should compare full name and aliases, date and place of birth, nationality, national ID number, passport number, address and any other available identifier. The analyst should also check internal records, the UNSC consolidated list entry, and any adverse media or prior screening results. The customer should not be asked whether he is on a sanctions list, because that risks tipping off; if identity verification is needed, it should be framed as routine. The resolution must be documented, including the identifiers compared, the sources checked, the conclusion and the approver. If the identifiers do not match, the hit can be closed as a false positive and the payment released. If the identifiers are inconclusive or suggest a possible match, the bank should err on the side of caution and escalate for a freeze decision. The charity element adds risk because terrorist financing can flow through charitable channels, so the underlying transaction should also be reviewed for suspicion.
2. If the hit is confirmed as a true match, what must the bank do, and what reporting obligations arise? If it is a false positive, what still needs to be done?
Read the worked answer
If the hit is confirmed as a true match to a UNSC-designated person or entity, the bank must freeze the funds without delay and must not make them available, directly or indirectly, to the designated person. The bank should not give prior notice to the customer. It must report the freeze to the Financial Monitoring Unit and to its regulator, the State Bank of Pakistan, in the prescribed manner. The bank should also consider whether the attempted transfer to the charity is itself suspicious and whether an STR is required. The freeze should cover all accounts and assets held by the customer, not just the pending transfer. The bank should maintain a complete record of the screening alert, the resolution, the freeze and all reports. If the hit is a false positive, the bank should document the resolution and release the payment, but it should still consider whether the underlying transaction is suspicious. A PKR 3.2 million transfer to a charity by a retired schoolteacher is not automatically suspicious, but if there are other red flags, an STR may be required. The policy gap is significant: the bank's screening policy lacks a freeze procedure and after-hours escalation. The bank should revise it to require immediate escalation, dual control, documented match resolution and periodic list updates. The branch's view that the match is 'obvious nonsense' is not a sufficient basis for release; only a documented compliance resolution is.