One Constellation
Book a Demo
Free Interactive Tool

Sanctions List Coverage Checker

Tell us which markets you touch and we will show you the sanctions, watchlist and screening sources your regime expects you to cover — then tick off what you screen today to see the gaps.

Book a Demo See Sanctions Screening
11 jurisdictions No sign-up required Nothing is stored

Step 1 — Where do you have exposure?

Select all that apply
Include any market where you hold a licence, serve customers, hold assets, clear payments or have a parent or group entity.

Step 2 — What do you screen against today?

—
Indicative coverage
0%
Assessment
Not started
0
Sources expected
0
Sources covered
0
Gaps to close
Gap summary
    How to read this. This checker maps markets to the list sources most commonly expected of regulated firms operating there. It is a planning aid, not a legal determination of your obligations, and it does not screen any name against any list. Your actual obligations depend on your licence, your activities, your group structure and your regulator's rules. Take advice on the specific regimes that bind you. Nothing you select here is transmitted or stored.
    Beyond the list count

    Full coverage on paper, gaps in practice

    Covering the right lists is the entry requirement, not the finish line. Most sanctions failures that end in enforcement action are not caused by a missing list. They are caused by a list that was covered but screened badly: stale data, brittle name matching, screening at onboarding only, or an alert queue nobody could clear.

    The five failures behind most enforcement actions

    • Refresh latency. Designations take effect the moment they are published. If your list data refreshes nightly or weekly, you have a window in which you are transacting with a designated party while believing you are compliant.
    • Exact-match logic. Names transliterate. A screening engine that will not catch a spelling variant, a reordered name, a different script or a common alias is a screening engine that will not catch the designation you are looking for.
    • Point-in-time screening. Screening the customer once at onboarding and never again means a customer designated in year three stays clean in your systems until someone notices.
    • Ownership and control. Most regimes extend restrictions to entities owned or controlled by a designated person, commonly at a fifty per cent ownership threshold and separately through control tests. Screening the entity name alone misses this entirely.
    • Alert fatigue. A screening system generating thousands of unmanageable false positives produces the same outcome as no screening at all, because the true hit is buried and the queue gets cleared under time pressure.

    What good looks like

    A defensible sanctions screening control screens every customer and every related party at onboarding, rescreens the entire book whenever any covered list changes, applies fuzzy and phonetic matching tuned to the name populations you actually serve, resolves ownership and control relationships rather than just entity names, and records the disposition of every alert with the analyst, the timestamp and the rationale. That evidence is what a supervisor asks for, and it is the part firms most often cannot produce.

    Screening in One Constellation

    Covered, continuous and evidenced

    Screening runs inside the same platform as onboarding and monitoring, so a hit does not have to be carried between systems by a human being.

    🛡️

    Global list coverage

    Sanctions, PEP and adverse media screening built on World-Check data, covering the major global and national regimes with structured, maintained records rather than scraped files.

    🔁

    Continuous rescreening

    The whole book is rescreened when list data changes. A new designation surfaces as an alert against existing customers, not just against the next application.

    🎯

    False positive management

    Tuned matching plus persistent whitelisting, so a discounted match on a common name stays discounted instead of reappearing in the queue every night.

    🏢

    Ownership and control

    UBO resolution feeds screening, so restrictions that flow through ownership chains are caught rather than stopping at the entity name on the application form.

    📋

    Alert audit trail

    Every alert carries the match data, the analyst who dispositioned it, the timestamp and the recorded rationale — exportable for supervisory review.

    🔗

    API and webhooks

    Screen from your own systems in real time, and receive alerts back into your case management or core platform without a manual handoff.

    See screening live Explore AML / CFT
    Questions

    About sanctions screening coverage

    Which sanctions lists must we screen against?+
    At minimum, the United Nations Security Council consolidated list, because UN designations are implemented into national law by member states, plus the consolidated list of every jurisdiction whose law applies to you. That usually means your licensing jurisdiction, any jurisdiction where you hold customers or assets, and the jurisdiction of any currency you clear. US dollar clearing in particular draws most institutions into the scope of US designations regardless of where they are based.
    Do we need to screen against OFAC if we are not a US firm?+
    Many non-US institutions do, in practice. US sanctions can reach non-US persons through US dollar clearing, US-origin goods or technology, US persons in the transaction chain, and secondary sanctions provisions in certain programmes. Most internationally active banks and payment firms screen against OFAC as a matter of course. Whether you are legally bound in any specific case is a question for your legal counsel.
    Is PEP screening a sanctions requirement?+
    No, they are separate controls that usually run through the same engine. Sanctions screening is about prohibition — you may not deal with a designated party. PEP screening is about risk — a politically exposed person is not prohibited, but attracts enhanced due diligence and, for foreign PEPs in most regimes, senior management approval and source of wealth verification.
    How often should sanctions lists be refreshed?+
    As close to real time as your provider supports. Designations bite from the moment of publication, so any refresh lag is a period of exposure. Alongside data refresh, the whole customer book should be rescreened when a covered list changes, rather than only screening new applicants against the updated data.
    What is the fifty per cent rule?+
    Several regimes extend restrictions to entities that a designated person owns above a threshold — commonly fifty per cent, whether held directly or indirectly and whether by one designated person or several in aggregate — and separately to entities a designated person controls regardless of ownership. It means screening the counterparty name alone is insufficient; you have to resolve the ownership and control structure behind it. Thresholds and control tests differ between regimes, so check each one that applies to you.
    Does this tool screen names?+
    No. It maps markets to expected list coverage and helps you find gaps in your own control design. It has no access to any sanctions, PEP or watchlist data and performs no name matching. Live screening is delivered inside the One Constellation platform — book a demo to see it.
    Keep going

    Other free compliance tools

    Country risk lookupFATF list status and due diligence expectations by jurisdiction AML risk scoring calculatorRate a customer against a FATF-aligned matrix AML fine exposure estimatorModel the penalty range your regime allows Compliance maturity assessmentBenchmark your AML programme across five domains

    Close the gaps with one screening engine

    Book a 30-minute demo and see continuous sanctions, PEP and adverse media screening running against a live customer book, with a full alert audit trail.

    Book a Demo See the Compliance Portal
    Scroll to Top