Not Just Names: Building Sanctions Screening That Thinks Like a Criminal

Sanctions screening, once treated as a box-ticking compliance function, has evolved into a strategic risk management discipline. In an era of complex and frequently shifting global sanctions regimes, particularly those emerging from geopolitical tensions involving Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others, financial institutions are under growing pressure to demonstrate not only technical compliance but genuine effectiveness. Designing a sanctions screening programme on a risk-based foundation requires a deep understanding of exposure points across the institution’s business model, the intelligent application of technology, and an agile governance framework. Central to this are robust internal watchlists and the skilful management of fuzzy matches, both of which are vital to reducing operational noise while maintaining sensitivity to true sanctions risk.

A Risk-Based Approach: Principles Over Process

Traditional screening programmes have too often been shaped by regulatory obligations rather than the underlying risk landscape. While compliance with lists published by authorities such as the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and the United Nations remains non-negotiable, it is no longer sufficient to merely screen against designated parties at onboarding or payment execution. A risk-based approach begins with a thorough understanding of the institution’s customer base, transaction volumes, product offerings, and geographic footprint. For example, a digital payments firm operating in high-risk jurisdictions such as Central Asia or the Caucasus will require more aggressive screening parameters than a domestic lender with low cross-border exposure.

This risk calibration should inform not only the selection of sanctions lists but also the configuration of the screening engine, the frequency of checks, and the governance surrounding alert resolution. Institutions must assess not only the likelihood of exposure to sanctioned parties, but also the potential consequences of failing to identify them in time. This, in turn, demands proactive horizon scanning and intelligence-led decision making.

Screening Architecture & Matching Logic

At the heart of an effective programme lies a sound screening architecture. This includes clear data ownership, quality controls, and well-defined distinctions between customer screening and transactional screening. Institutions must ensure that relevant data is accurately captured at the source, consistently structured, and subject to quality checks to prevent missed matches. The configuration of the screening engine must reflect the institution’s specific risk profile, particularly in the way it handles partial, fuzzy, or phonetic matches.

Fuzzy matching is essential for detecting sanctioned individuals and entities who attempt to evade controls through minor alterations of name spellings, the use of aliases, or the exploitation of transliteration issues. An effective matching engine should support multiple algorithms, such as Levenshtein distance, token matching, and phonetic similarity. However, the real challenge lies in setting appropriate thresholds. A match score that is too low can overwhelm operations with false positives, while one that is too high risks missing true hits. Institutions must therefore conduct rigorous scenario testing and continuously refine thresholds based on empirical results and risk tolerance.

Building & Maintaining Internal Watchlists

Public sanctions lists are the baseline, but a mature risk-based programme extends beyond them. Internal watchlists play a critical role in enhancing screening effectiveness by capturing exposures that may not yet be reflected in official designations but still present material reputational, legal, or financial risk. These lists may include individuals or entities linked to serious crime, political exposure in sensitive regions, known facilitators of sanctions evasion, or counterparties that have been rejected following enhanced due diligence. In some cases, previously sanctioned individuals who have been de-listed may continue to present unacceptable risk, depending on the institution’s appetite and ethical stance.

Internal watchlists should be subject to clearly defined governance procedures. The criteria for inclusion must be evidence-based and subject to senior oversight, ideally involving compliance, legal, and senior management stakeholders. These lists must also be maintained separately from official sanctions data to ensure clarity in reporting and alert categorisation. Moreover, regular reviews are essential to ensure relevance and to avoid unnecessary friction or unfair treatment of counterparties.

Managing Fuzzy Matches & Reducing False Positives

While fuzzy matching is indispensable, it also brings operational complexity. Excessive false positives can lead to alert fatigue, strained resources, and a reduced ability to detect true risks. To mitigate this, financial institutions must deploy several complementary strategies. First, matching thresholds must be calibrated carefully to strike a balance between sensitivity and efficiency. This calibration should not be static; it must be continuously reviewed in light of business changes, regulator expectations, and historical match performance.

Second, contextual filtering is crucial. Matching engines that consider additional data points such as date of birth, location, nationality, and known affiliations can significantly enhance match precision. For instance, a match to a common name on a sanctions list should not trigger an alert unless the contextual data also aligns. Third, systems should be capable of learning from operational feedback. Where possible, machine learning models can help prioritise alerts based on historical outcomes, though such models must be transparent, explainable, and subject to strong governance.

Pre-processing of data also plays an important role. Institutions should invest in name normalisation, the removal of diacritical marks, and consistent formatting of addresses and names in both source data and list data. In many cases, seemingly minor improvements in data hygiene can dramatically improve matching outcomes. Additionally, a closed-loop feedback mechanism, where analyst decisions are regularly reviewed and fed back into model tuning, ensures ongoing optimisation of system performance.

Governance, Testing & Regulator Expectations

A risk-based screening programme must be underpinned by strong governance, clear documentation, and a robust audit trail. Policies should articulate the institution’s risk appetite, screening coverage, and escalation protocols. These must be approved at the board or executive level and embedded within broader financial crime governance structures. Institutions must also maintain a comprehensive inventory of systems and processes that contribute to sanctions screening, with designated owners accountable for data quality, list management, system tuning, and alert handling.

Regular scenario testing is essential to assess the ability of the system to detect sanctioned parties under different conditions. This includes simulations of known evasion typologies, such as spelling variants or the use of proxy entities. Testing should be risk-based and reflect both the institution’s business model and the current geopolitical environment. Regulators increasingly expect firms not only to show that their screening engines are working, but that they are capable of detecting sophisticated threats

.

Emerging Trends & Strategic Considerations

Looking ahead, sanctions evasion is becoming more sophisticated. Techniques such as the use of digital assets, trade-based laundering, and complex legal structures are increasingly common. As a result, institutions must move towards more intelligent, network-based screening approaches that can detect hidden connections and indirect exposure. Graph analytics and relationship mapping tools are gaining traction in this space, offering a way to go beyond name matching and identify patterns of association.

At the same time, geopolitical volatility means that institutions must be prepared to react rapidly to new designations and shifts in regulatory expectations. Screening programmes must therefore be agile, with the capability to ingest list updates in near real-time and apply jurisdictional overlays where necessary. Institutions operating across multiple markets must also contend with divergent sanctions regimes and ensure their systems are capable of screening against multi-jurisdictional obligations simultaneously.

Conclusion: Embedding Strategic Resilience in Sanctions Compliance

Designing and maintaining a risk-based sanctions screening programme is not a static compliance exercise but a dynamic, strategic commitment. As global sanctions regimes become more intricate and illicit actors adopt increasingly sophisticated evasion tactics, financial institutions must ensure their screening frameworks are agile, intelligent, and deeply integrated into their overall risk management architecture.

Central to this endeavour is the development and governance of internal watchlists that reflect the institution's specific risk appetite and exposure. These bespoke lists enable firms to proactively identify and mitigate risks that may not yet be captured by official sanctions lists, thereby enhancing the institution's defensive posture against emerging threats.

Equally critical is the implementation of advanced fuzzy matching techniques that balance sensitivity and specificity. By fine-tuning matching algorithms and incorporating contextual data, institutions can significantly reduce false positives, streamline alert management, and ensure that genuine threats are promptly identified and addressed.

Ultimately, a mature sanctions screening programme is characterised by its adaptability, precision, and alignment with the institution's broader compliance and risk management strategies. By embedding these principles into their operational fabric, financial institutions can not only meet regulatory expectations but also fortify their resilience against the evolving landscape of financial crime.

Ready to Strengthen Your Sanctions Programme?

OpusDatum helps firms design agile, risk-based screening frameworks that go beyond tick-box compliance. From tailored internal watchlists to smarter fuzzy matching, we build controls that actually reduce risk.

Get in touch to upgrade your sanctions strategy.