400 ms
is your whole budget
Anything slower than the rail is a control you do not actually have.
By industry
Compliance at settlement speed
Instant rails leave you 400 milliseconds to decide. Screening, sanctions and fraud have to answer inside that window — or not at all.
What you switch on
What a payment institution switches on first
Screening and fraud on the same record, from day one.
AML Screening
Both parties, inside the payment window.
See the productFraud Prevention
Behavioural signals on the same customer record.
See the productOngoing Monitoring
Counterparties stay in scope after the payment clears.
See the productCase Management
Holds and releases with reason codes.
See the product
Why this matters here
You cannot hold an instant payment while you think about it.
Batch controls assume a cut-off that instant rails removed. Every check you cannot complete in the window becomes either a released payment or a held customer, and both show up in a supervisor’s review.
24/7
no settlement window
There is no overnight batch to hide reconciliation in.
Two teams
fraud and AML disagree
The same payment gets scored twice, on two systems, with two answers.
400 ms
Control budget per payment
150 ms
Median screening call
24/7
No settlement window
−58%
Payment holds after tuning
Journey · Against the clock
Scroll to advance
A customer through your funnel
-
Step 01
A payment enters the rail
Originator, beneficiary and reference resolve to known entities before any list is touched.
-
Step 02
Screened inside the window
Sanctions and watchlist against both parties, returned well inside the rail’s deadline.
-
Step 03
Fraud and AML score together
One score, two signal sets. Behaviour and list exposure stop being separate arguments.
-
Step 04
Released, with a record
Cleared in-window and logged with the reason. Holds carry a code the customer service team can read.
complead / payments / inbound
- Payments per second1,840
- Resolved to known96.2%
- Median resolve11 ms
complead / screening / payment
- Screening time148 ms
- Budget remaining252 ms
- Hits0
complead / fusion / score
- Fusion score18 low
- Behaviour signals4
- List exposurenone
complead / payments / decision
- Released1,839
- Held1
- Reason codeattached
Enter
Screen
Score
Release
What you answer to
What the rails and the regulator both require
Instant settlement did not relax any obligation. It only removed the time you used to complete them in.
Read the compliance guides
Payments regulator
Screening before release, not after
Per transaction
EU IPR
Verification of payee on instant transfers
In-window
FIU
Reporting on detection
24h – 30 days
Scheme rules
Availability and response-time SLAs
Continuous
Case study · Payments
Read the case study
Instant payments, instant controls
A PSP moved sanctions screening from a post-settlement sweep into the payment call itself, then put fraud and AML signals on one score so the two teams stopped arguing about the same transaction.
400 ms
Control budget met
−58%
Payment holds
4 weeks
To production
Cross-family links
Where teams like yours go next
FAQ
Before you ask us
Can you really answer inside 400 ms?
Median screening is 150 ms, leaving the rest of the budget to your own logic. The number is measured end to end, not in a lab.
What happens if you time out?
The call fails open or closed to your policy, and the decision is logged either way — silence is never treated as a pass.
Do fraud and AML have to be separate?
No. Both feed one Fusion score on the same customer record, which is also what removes the duplicated review.
How are holds explained to customers?
Every hold carries a reason code your service team can read without opening the compliance tool.
Run it against a day of your own traffic
Send a sample file of payments. We will show you what clears in-window and what your current setup would have held.
3,000+
Data sources checked
220+
Countries covered
15 min
Always real-time data