GUÉP
Sanctions Screening · Watchlist Screening

The real name spelled differently slips through. The innocent namesake gets flagged. Does your screening do both?

Kavuka Sanctions Screening checks customers, counterparties and transactions against every list — international (OFAC/SDN, UN, EU, UK) and Brazilian (CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM, TCU, slave-labor list, CNJ) — with identity-attribute matching and a decision at transaction speed.

International + national
in a single pipeline
By identity
attribute matching, not just name
On every update
base re-scanned
Real time
decision in the transaction flow

Pipeline in production screening customers, counterparties and transactions against national and international lists — base re-scanned on every list update, with case management and a full regulator-ready trail.

Every day your screening floods the queue with namesakes — and lets the real name spelled differently slip through.

The correspondent asking for evidence

A UN Security Council freeze is immediate and objective: failing it means liability under AML law. The correspondent bank demands evidence of your sanctions program — or de-risks and cuts the relationship.

The false-positive queue

The "Mohammed" blocked by surname. Text-equality matching floods the operation with namesakes and stalls international transactions for days in manual review.

The slave-labor list out of scope

International lists yes, national ones forgotten. Hiring someone sanctioned on CEIS, CNEP or the slave-labor list contaminates your own eligibility in public tenders and financing.

Cost The cost of inaction: liability under AML law and UN Security Council freeze resolutions (strict, personal liability for directors); the loss of correspondent banking relationships through de-risking that isolates the institution; and hiring a nationally sanctioned party that contaminates the company's eligibility in public tenders and financing.

How it works

From watchlist to decision, at transaction speed.

  1. 01

    Cover

    Every list — from OFAC to the slave-labor list, international and Brazilian — at high frequency, with the base re-scanned on every update.

  2. 02

    Match

    Entity matching using identity attributes from Kavuka data: document, date of birth, address and ties — not just the name.

  3. 03

    Decide

    In the flow: approve, block or escalate — respecting the Pix window and auto-approving the clean base.

  4. 04

    Document

    Case management with context, four-eyes decisions and an audit trail for the regulator and the correspondent.

Coverage

The engine behind every screening

A single query cross-references national and international lists with the identity attributes of Kavuka data and returns an alert with a real probability — ready to automate the decision.

International lists

OFAC/SDN, UN, European Union, UK HMT

Brazilian lists

CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM, TCU, slave-labor list, CNJ

Entity matching

Calibrable fuzzy, transliteration and identity attributes

Transaction screening

Counterparties verified within the Pix window

Continuous monitoring

Base re-scanned on every list update

Case management

Alert queue with context and four-eyes

Trail and evidence

Documented decision, exportable to the correspondent

Decision engine

Sensitivity calibrable by list and by risk

Segments

Who decides with Kavuka Sanctions Screening

Regulated

Banks, Fintechs & Remittances

The core AML/CFT obligation and the correspondent banks' demand for a sanctions program backed by evidence.

Volume

Payments & Acquiring

Counterparties at volume and speed, screened in the flow, with a decision inside the transaction window.

Foreign trade

Exporters & Importers

Screening against destination and counterparty sanctions, before the international transaction stalls in review.

Integrity

Corporate Procurement

Supplier screening against CEIS, CNEP and the slave-labor list — the layer that feeds KYS and protects the company's eligibility.

Legal shield

The pipeline your sanctions program requires

Kavuka Sanctions Screening was designed for the UN Security Council's immediate-freeze regime and the risk-based approach of Brazilian AML law and COAF resolutions, and handled for data-protection law from the very first record. Evidence is not a report at the end — it is how the pipeline operates.

  • Immediate freezing of assets of parties sanctioned by the UN Security Council, per Brazilian AML law and COAF freeze resolutions.
  • National coverage treated as first-class: CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM, TCU debarments, the slave-labor list and CNJ asset blocks.
  • Four-eyes decisions and case management with context — evidence exportable to correspondent banks.
  • Per-alert audit trail: every decision with rationale, list, matching attribute and date.
  • Public or legally permitted sources; encryption in transit and at rest.
Already operating this way
The false-positive queue shrank drastically: the namesake clears itself by date of birth, and the analyst only sees the match with a real probability.
AML Director · digital bank
The correspondent bank asked for evidence of our sanctions program. We exported the full trail of every alert. The relationship continued.
Compliance Director · payment institution
We used to screen only international lists. Now suppliers pass CEIS, CNEP and the slave-labor list before signing — tender eligibility stopped being a gamble.
Head of Procurement · large industrial buyer

Run your base against every list — and watch your false-positive queue shrink.

In 15 minutes you see the full screening running on your scenario, with the before-and-after queue metric.

  • For businesses only. No purchase commitment.
  • Data used solely for commercial contact.
  • Enterprise leads answered within 1 business day.

In 15 minutes you see the platform in action and get a proposal for your volume.

What sanctions screening is and how to do it accurately

Sanctions Screening is the systematic checking of people, companies and transactions against sanctions and restriction lists. On one side are the international ones — the US OFAC/SDN, the UN Security Council, European Union and UK HMT lists; on the other, the Brazilian ones, often forgotten: CEIS and CNEP (debarred and penalized companies), CEPIM, TCU debarments, the slave-labor list and CNJ asset blocks. Screening means comparing every name, document and counterparty against this mesh of lists and deciding, with evidence, whether there is a match that requires a freeze, escalation or approval.

The obligation has two engines. The first is the AML/CFT regime: Brazilian Law 9,613/1998 and COAF resolutions require the immediate, objective freezing of assets of people and entities sanctioned by the UN Security Council — here a failure is not debatable negligence, it is a violation. The second is commercial integrity: hiring a nationally sanctioned party contaminates the company's own eligibility in public tenders, public financing and the supply chain of large buyers. There is also pressure from the correspondent bank, which demands evidence of the sanctions program and de-risks — cutting the relationship — when screening is weak.

The technical challenge that defines the category is matching accuracy. Names transliterated from other alphabets, variant spellings, aliases and shell companies require intelligent entity matching. Bad screening fails on both sides: it either floods the operation with false positives — the innocent namesake blocked by surname, the queue that stalls an international transaction for days — or it lets the real name spelled differently slip through, the classic false negative of text-equality matching. The category's declared war is the false positive: every benchmark published by the global incumbents (LSEG World-Check, ComplyAdvantage) is about queue reduction.

Kavuka's advantage is structural: accuracy is built with identity, not with name. The in-house Brazilian data — tax IDs, date of birth, address and ownership ties — feeds attribute matching, clears the namesake automatically and calibrates sensitivity by list and by risk. National coverage (CEIS, CNEP, slave-labor list, CNJ) is treated as a first-class citizen, not as exotic. Real time is a requirement, not a differentiator: the decision comes within the Pix window, with auto-approval for the clean base, immediate escalation for the probable match, the entire base re-scanned on every list update and the decision documented in every case — for the regulator and for the correspondent.

FAQ
Which lists are covered?

The international ones — OFAC/SDN, UN, European Union and UK HMT — and the Brazilian ones: CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM, TCU debarments, the slave-labor list and CNJ asset blocks, among others. Updates are high-frequency, with the base re-scanned on every change.

How do you reduce false positives?

Identity-based matching, not name-based. The attributes from Kavuka data — document, date of birth, address and ties — clear the namesake automatically and calibrate sensitivity by list and by risk. The queue starts receiving alerts with a real probability, not look-alike names.

What about a sanctioned name spelled differently?

The matching covers transliterations, variant spellings and known aliases on the lists — the classic false negative of text-equality screening. The real name spelled differently lights up; the namesake clears itself from the queue.

Does the screening work at Pix speed?

Yes. The decision comes within the transaction window, with auto-approval for the clean base and immediate escalation for the probable match — without stalling the operation in manual review.

Does it work for supplier screening?

Yes. The same engine runs over the supplier base against CEIS, CNEP and the slave-labor list, feeding the KYS (Know Your Supplier) pipeline: a company that hires a sanctioned party contaminates its own eligibility in tenders and financing.

How do I prove the sanctions program to the correspondent bank?

Each alert has case management with context, four-eyes decisions and a full trail — rationale, list, matching attribute and date. The evidence is exportable directly to the correspondent, which keeps the relationship rather than de-risking.

What is the difference between Sanctions Screening, PEP and KYC?

KYC is the onboarding and maintenance pipeline for customers (identity + risk). PEP screening identifies politically exposed persons and their ties. Sanctions Screening checks against sanctions and restriction lists. On the Kavuka platform, sanctions and PEP run on the same AML/CFT pipeline and are sold as a pair.

Let's talk

Your next high-impact decision starts with the right data.

Talk to a GUÉP specialist and find where applied intelligence creates the most value in your operation.