Compliance built for payment speed

Yes. Median screening is around 150 ms, which leaves the rest of the control budget to your own logic. Under instant payment schemes a transfer settles in seconds, so screening has to run inside the payment, not in a queue behind the rail.

The call fails open or closed according to your policy, and the decision is logged either way. An auditor can see not only what happened to each payment but which rule decided it, including in the moments when screening did not respond in time.

Yes, both sides in real time, with fraud signals scored in the same decision. Clear payments are released without a queue, and only those that need judgement are held. The payee side matters because scam proceeds and mule accounts usually sit on the receiving end.

No. Both feed one Fusion score on the same customer record. Fraud and laundering use the same accounts, mules and merchants, and two systems watching them separately each see half the story. The combined score still breaks down into the signals behind it.

The merchant stays in scope after approval, so a change in ownership, business model or volume shows up on the same record instead of at the next review. At onboarding, business customers are resolved to their owners and directors, and a risk score is set before the first payment. Later changes are read against that baseline.

By looking across accounts, wallets and merchants rather than one account at a time. Related alerts are linked into one case, alongside structuring and other unusual flows, and AI drafts the summary before the analyst makes the call. Seen together, a set of small unrelated-looking alerts becomes a network.

Every hold carries a reason code your service team can read without opening the compliance tool. The customer gets an answer on first contact rather than a transfer to compliance. Reason codes describe the status, not the suspicion, so staff can explain a hold without tipping off.

Payment screening and merchant onboarding, because those controls sit in the flow of funds from day one. Monitoring and fraud detection then join on the same record, so the history built at onboarding is already there when the first pattern appears.

The case moves to a draft filing with the evidence already attached. Your team reviews, signs and submits it. Because the draft is built from the case, the narrative, timestamps and supporting documents match what the analyst actually reviewed.

Yes. Send a sample file of payments and see what clears in-window, what is held, and what your current setup would have held. The comparison shows the legitimate payments your current rules stop and the ones that need a closer look.