Discuss your projectOnboarding that runs identity verification and sanctions screening through licensed providers, turns every match into a case with an owner and evidence, and schedules reviews by risk rating. When an auditor asks, the history is already on file.
Illustration of a compliance case system built by Baybloom: onboarding checks run through providers, matches becoming cases with owners and evidence, and periodic reviews scheduled by risk.
Compliance and operations leaders at fintechs, lenders, brokers, payment businesses, and any company with know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering obligations. The policy is yours and the checks come from licensed providers; the system runs the workflow, holds the case, and proves what was done.
The workflow
The steps we see most often in this kind of operation.
Features
Business customers’ owners, directors, and controllers collected in structured form, each checked through providers and linked to the company record.
Customers re-screened when watchlists change, with new potential matches arriving as cases rather than waiting for the next scheduled review.
Identity documents, proof of address, and company filings collected through a portal, with reminders when a document expires or needs refreshing.
Higher-risk decisions require a second reviewer before they take effect, with both reviewers and their reasons recorded on the case.
Investigations assembled with transactions, notes, and evidence in one file, ready for your compliance team to decide on any regulatory filing.
Views of open cases, overdue reviews, decision turnaround, and risk distribution, giving the compliance officer evidence for boards, partners, and auditors.
Your first release
How the work runs
We start with the people doing the work and the systems around it, then write down the first release: what it includes, what it leaves for later, the integration decisions, and the acceptance criteria. Nothing is built until that scope is agreed.
We build in releases you can review as the work takes shape, using realistic data. Every release carries tests, a security review, and documentation. Integrations are tested against real records, with exceptions visible.
Your team receives the documentation, the runbooks, and the training to run the system, and we stay on for continued engineering when you want it.
Scope and price
Every project is priced from a written scope. These are the factors that move it most.
Individuals are simpler than businesses, where ownership structures, directors, and company documents add data capture, provider checks, and case handling.
Each verification, screening, or registry provider adds integration and response handling, and combining several needs rules for which result applies.
The number of risk factors, review frequencies, and escalation paths in your policy determines how much rule logic and testing the workflow needs.
Requirements from your advisers, partners, or regulators on what is retained, for how long, and in what form shape storage, audit, and reporting design.
Payments business
In a payments business, onboarding checks are often run by hand in separate tools, and screening matches are resolved over email. A compliance workflow runs identity verification and sanctions screening through licensed providers from the application itself. Each match becomes a case with an assigned analyst, a deadline, and attached evidence, and the decision is recorded with reasons. Every customer receives a risk rating that schedules the periodic review. When an auditor asks for the history, it is already in the system. Transaction monitoring alerts can later feed the same case queue.
Questions
What buyers ask before a project like this starts.
No. Identity verification and screening come from licensed providers through their APIs. The system runs the workflow, holds the cases, and records what was done and why.
No. Your policy and your compliance advisers define what must be checked, recorded, and retained. We build to it and make it provable.
Yes. Risk ratings schedule reviews, the system prompts them, and the review is a case with evidence like any other.
Alerts from a monitoring tool can flow into the same case system in a later release, so one team works one queue.
Customer records, past check results, and documents are imported and linked, and each customer gets a risk rating and a review date under the new rules. Customers missing required evidence are listed as cases, so the backlog becomes a managed queue rather than a hidden gap.
Yes. Providers sit behind an integration layer, so the workflow, cases, and records stay the same when a provider changes or a second one is added. Past results remain on the customer record with the provider that produced them, which keeps the audit trail intact.
Access follows roles your compliance team defines, so investigators, reviewers, and front-line staff see only what their job requires. Sensitive cases can be restricted further, and every view and change is logged, which supports the confidentiality your obligations and your partners expect.