Why DueCheck

Detection is a feature. Proof is the architecture

Every AML product finds names on lists, and screening gets cheaper every year. What your firm is really buying is the ability to answer a supervisor two years from now, and that has to be built in from the first line

Request a demo What the file can prove

Screening SCR-2419, two years on Still provable

Which lists, which versions. Pinned at the moment of screening
How the risk score was reached. Every input stored, re-derivable today
Who decided, and when. A named reviewer, and a second pair of eyes
That nothing changed since. Each entry sealed to the one before

What you are buying

Proof, not detection

Ask what a firm is actually buying. It is not a list of matches. It is the ability to answer a supervisor two years later

Any screening tool can tell a firm what it found today. Very few can reconstruct, twenty six months later, exactly what was checked, against which version of which list, what the client had declared at that moment, who decided what, and prove that none of it has been altered since

Detection is a feature. Proof is an architecture, and it has to be built in from the first line or it cannot be added later

In DueCheck today Released

Screenings pin the list version they ran againstSo the answer to "what did you check" never depends on today's list

Risk assessments store the snapshot they were computed fromSo a score can be re-derived rather than re-asserted

Every audit entry carries the fingerprint of the one before itVerified nightly, so an altered line cannot hide

Ownership percentages are exact decimalsSo a chain ten links deep still adds up

How DueCheck is developed and verified

Both halves of the file

A screening tool sees one half. You need both

A screening tool sees the names a firm gives it. With IXXO Hub and DueCheck you also see what the client said about themselves, in their own words, on a form your firm designed

That difference cannot be closed by adding a feature. It needs the system your clients onboard through, which is a different kind of product. A screening vendor cannot buy its way to a declaration history

So everything we build next rests on the pair. Anything that works on screening data alone is a feature any vendor can copy. Anything that holds the declaration beside the evidence is lasting value for your firm

How DueCheck works with IXXO Hub

Coming next

Three things we are building on the pair

These are planned and not yet released. Each carries this label until the release is live

Pillar onePlanned

The discrepancy engine

Every field the client declared, compared against what the evidence establishes, at three levels

The company. Declared beneficial owners against the ownership walk. Declared countries of operation against where the money actually moves. Declared risk assessment against the computed one

The person. A declared "not a politically exposed person" against a screening match. A typed passport number against the number a document reader took off the passport itself, because identity documents record whether they were typed, read from a scan, or verified. A declared shareholding against the one the structure implies

Time. What changed in the declaration between one review and the next, and whether the client mentioned it. A quietly altered beneficial owner between annual reviews is a signal no screening tool can see, because no screening tool holds last year's declaration

Pillar twoPlanned

Provable negative assurance

Every product reports what it found. A firm's real exposure is what it did not find, and whether it can prove it looked

"This person was screened against these lists, at these exact versions, on these dates, and matched nothing" is the sentence that protects a firm in an inspection. It requires the list version to be pinned at the moment of screening, which DueCheck already does on every screening today. What is planned is to make it a first-class report rather than a property of the database

Pillar threePlanned

The inspection pack

One press produces the file a supervisor asks for: the declaration as it stood, the evidence gathered, the discrepancies found and how each was resolved, the decisions and who made them, and the chain proving none of it changed afterwards

Not an export of rows. A document a person can hand over and defend, generated from data that was recorded for that purpose rather than reconstructed afterwards from whatever survived

Your whole book

The questions no single file can answer

Most AML products are built around one client at a time. A compliance officer is responsible for the whole book, and almost nothing is built for it

Book view: planned

What it answers	What it needs
01The same person on unrelated files	A director appearing across nine clients who have nothing to do with each other. It needs every client's declared officers, not just the names a firm chose to screen
02Files that resemble each other	The same registered office, the same source of funds wording, the same structure shape across clients introduced separately. It needs the declarations, in the clients' own words
03Where the book is stale	Which files have not been refreshed, which have documents expiring, which clients have not confirmed anything in two years. It needs the review history and the declaration dates together
04Aggregate exposure	How much of the book sits in one jurisdiction, one sector, one risk band, and how that moved this quarter. It needs computed risk across every client, comparable because it was computed the same way

The first row is the one compliance officers ask about first. A nominee director quietly recurring across a book is a genuine and serious pattern, invisible to anyone working one file at a time

What we hold ourselves to

Three promises about what comes next

Promises Every release

01Nothing rests on the connection before it is reliable. A comparison fed by a flaky import produces false findings, and a false finding in a compliance tool destroys trust faster than a missing feature ever could
02What the client declares never feeds the risk score. The computed risk stays independent of what the client claimed, by construction rather than by care. Otherwise the comparison becomes circular
03Nothing is described before it works. That is why everything on this page that is not yet released says Planned. A product that overstates itself has already failed the test it is selling

Request a demo

See the proof on your own clients

Bring three client names to a thirty minute walkthrough. We screen them live, then show you what the file can prove about that screening

Request a demo DueCheck with IXXO Hub