⚖
BSA / AML & Financial Crime
Tune sanctions, screening and monitoring before a single false positive reaches an analyst.
Test AML and KYC vendors and models against labelled synthetic patterns, side by side, and choose on measured performance, not a procurement questionnaire.
6 wks
vendor bake-off to decision
0
real customer records exposed
1
contract, not many
The problem
The screening that looks best on paper is rarely the one that performs.
Financial-crime tooling is bought on RFP responses and reference calls, then discovered in production when alert volumes overwhelm the team. The honest test is a head-to-head on representative data: detection rates, false-positive load and explainability, measured before you commit. Without a contained environment, that test is itself a third-party risk event, so it never happens. NayaOne makes evaluation safe enough to come first.
What teams prove here
Every test runs in an air-gapped workspace, on representative data, with an evidence pack at the end.
Sanctions & watchlist screening
Compare screening engines on identical synthetic name and transaction sets, measuring hit rates and false positives on equal footing.
Transaction monitoring
Tune typologies and thresholds against labelled synthetic laundering patterns before they ever run on live flows.
KYC & perpetual KYC
Evaluate onboarding, identity and pKYC vendors against synthetic document and entity data with no privacy exposure.
Explainability & audit
Generate the evidence pack that shows a regulator how and why an alerting model behaves the way it does.
The data
Representative by default. Real only if you choose.
Synthetic datasets come pre-loaded, so evaluation starts on day one with zero exposure.
Synthetic transactions with labelled laundering typologies
Synthetic sanctions & PEP screening sets
Synthetic identity & entity data
Straight answers
Q.
Doesn’t evaluating an AML vendor mean full TPRM first?
That is the category error. Without containment, every evaluation is a real third-party risk event, so TPRM has to lead. Inside the air-gap, evaluation comes first and due diligence only runs on the vendor you actually want.
Q.
Can we use our own typologies and lists?
Yes, under your controls inside the boundary. Most teams start with synthetic patterns to move fast, then introduce their own once the approach is proven.
Q.
How does this satisfy compliance?
Compliance can interrogate live detection rates, false-positive load and explainability output, not a vendor-completed form. That evidence is the auditable record.
Prove it on your use case.
A 30-minute walkthrough, scoped to exactly what you’re trying to evaluate.