Calendar-driven
review dates
The cycle is set by the filing month, not by the risk.
By use case
Diligence that never goes stale
Periodic review assumes nothing changes between cycles. Perpetual KYB watches the registry, the ownership and the lists — and reviews only what moved.
What you switch on
What perpetual diligence needs switched on
A baseline worth watching, then the watching itself.
Why this matters here
A file reviewed in January is an assumption by March.
Directors resign, ownership moves, a UBO becomes a PEP. Periodic review catches all of it eventually — on a date chosen by a calendar rather than by the change itself.
Re-read
from scratch every time
The previous review left no trail, so the next one starts at zero.
Silent changes
nobody is told
A director resigns and the file stays green until the next cycle.
0
Fixed review cycles
−48%
Review effort
15 min
List refresh
Daily
Registry checks
Workflow · Over time
Scroll to advance
The workflow, step by step
-
Step 01
The baseline file
Ownership, directors and control resolved once, with each source and date recorded.
-
Step 02
Watch the sources, not the calendar
Registry filings, list publications and adverse media checked continuously against the baseline.
-
Step 03
Only changes raise a review
A director resignation or an ownership move triggers a targeted review, not a full re-read.
-
Step 04
The file is always current
Every field carries its own last-verified date, so the age of the answer is visible.
complead / kyb / baseline
- Entities38,204
- Owners traced112,908
- Sources3 registries
complead / kyb / watch
- Registries polleddaily
- Listsevery 15 min
- Entities in scope38,204
complead / kyb / events
- Changes detected212
- Reviews triggered47
- Auto-cleared165
complead / kyb / entity
- Fields verified100%
- Oldest field6 days
- Review backlog0
Baseline
Watch
Change
Current
What you answer to
What the obligation actually says
No regime mandates a twelve-month cycle. They ask for diligence proportionate to risk, kept current — which is a weaker requirement to meet continuously than periodically.
Read the compliance guides
FATF R.10
Ongoing due diligence throughout the relationship
Continuous
EU AMLD
Documents and data kept up to date
Ongoing
Supervisor
Justification for your review approach
Per review
Registry
Discrepancy reporting where required
On detection
Case study · Wealth
Read the case study
A private bank halved its periodic review effort
Reviews restarted from scratch because the previous decision left nothing behind. Watching the sources instead of the calendar turned the cycle into a check on what changed.
−48%
Review effort
0
Backlog
6 days
Oldest unverified field
Cross-family links
Where teams like yours go next
FAQ
Before you ask us
Does this replace periodic review?
It replaces the calendar. Many firms keep a light annual attestation on top, which is a much smaller exercise once the file is current.
Which registries are covered?
National company registries where they publish, plus your own filings and documents as sources of record.
What counts as a change?
Directors, ownership percentages, control, address, status, and any list or adverse media movement on a linked person.
How is a stale field visible?
Every field carries its own last-verified date, so the age of an answer is on the record rather than inferred.
See how much of your book is already stale
Send a sample of entity files with their last review dates. We will show you what has changed since.
3,000+
Data sources checked
220+
Countries covered
15 min
Always real-time data