AML screening checks a person against watchlists and returns a match score and a risk score. Setting those two thresholds well is what makes the results useful.
Every hit carries two scores, and confusing them is the main source of AML pain. The match score asks "is this the same person?" The risk score asks "how serious is it if it is?" The risk score drives the outcome. AML screening is $0.20 per screen, paid from your plan credit or balance.
AML screening checks a person or company against sanctions, watchlist, and adverse media sources, and returns a risk-based result you can act on automatically or route for manual review.
#What gets screened
Each screening checks the entity against several source categories:
- Sanctions lists - government and international sanctions and travel-ban lists.
- Politically exposed persons (PEP) - individuals with prominent public roles, from heads of state down to relatives and close associates.
- Criminal and law-enforcement records - global and local databases, including wanted lists.
- Adverse media - news coverage of financial crime, fraud, or related issues.
- Regulatory enforcement - warnings, fines, and enforcement actions from financial regulators.
A hit can come from a watchlist database, from adverse media, or both. A person or company can appear in press coverage even when they aren't listed in a formal database, so treat an adverse-media-only hit as a genuine signal rather than a lesser one.
For the full source breakdown, see what lists Didit screens against.
#The two scores
This is the part worth internalising, because nearly every "why did this flag?" question resolves here.
Match score - is this hit actually the same person or company? Calculated from name, date of birth, nationality, and other identifying details. A common name against a large sanctions list produces many low-confidence candidate matches; low-confidence matches are automatically excluded.
Risk score - how serious is this if it is the same entity? Calculated from the category (sanctions versus PEP versus adverse media), the PEP tier, the crime type, and country risk.
The risk score determines the final status: approved, in review, or declined. Both thresholds are configurable per workflow.
#How the risk score is calculated
The risk score is a weighted average of three components, each scored 0 to 100:
| Component | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Category | 50% | Which kind of list the hit is on. Sanctions and top-tier PEPs score 100; a Warnings and Regulatory enforcement listing 80 to 95; lower PEP tiers 70 to 79; adverse media alone 55 to 69 (typically 60) |
| Country | 30% | The AML/CFT risk of the entity's country on Didit's country table (Luxembourg or Germany in the twenties, high-risk jurisdictions far higher) |
| Criminal records | 20% | A court conviction scores 100 and an enforced criminal penalty 90. An administrative fine or a regulatory sanction is not a criminal record and scores 0 here |
The bands are fixed: Low below 30, Medium 30 to 49, High 50 and above. Which band lands in review or decline is set by your thresholds.
A worked example, because it comes up constantly: a company fined by a financial regulator, where the fine has been reported in the press but the entity is not on a regulator's enforcement list. The hit is adverse media only, so category is 60; a low-risk EU country gives roughly 23; no criminal record gives 0. That is (23 x 0.30) + (60 x 0.50) + (0 x 0.20), about 37: Medium risk. With the console's default thresholds (approve below 80) that still approves, so lower your review threshold if you want hits like this in front of a person. The same fine sourced from the regulator's own enforcement listing would score 95 on category and land in High. So "the sanction wasn't detected" usually means it was detected, from a different kind of source than you expected, and scored accordingly. Full detail: AML risk score.
Setting the match threshold too low is the single most common cause of an unworkable AML queue. Lower it and you catch more true matches - and vastly more people who merely share a name with someone on a list. Start where the defaults are, measure your own false-positive rate, then adjust.
#Company and person screening are separate
For business verification, screening runs at two levels: the company itself, and every identified beneficial owner and officer individually. They're separate checks with separate prices - $0.20 each. See how business verification works.
#Screening without a full verification
If you only need a screen - no document, no selfie - you can call AML screening on its own rather than wrapping it in a full KYC workflow. A standalone API call is billed per call at the same $0.20, paid from your plan credit or balance, exactly like AML in a workflow.
#Ongoing monitoring
Once someone is approved, a one-time screen only tells you about the day it ran. Ongoing monitoring re-screens daily against updated lists and moves the session if something new crosses your threshold. See ongoing AML monitoring.
#What it costs
| Price | |
|---|---|
| AML screening (person or company) | $0.20 per screen |
| Ongoing AML monitoring | $0.07 per year |
AML is $0.20 per screen on top of the other checks, so a workflow that includes it uses your monthly credit faster - a frequent surprise for teams who budgeted only for the basic KYC checks. See what the free plan includes.
#Related
Still stuck? Talk to a human.
Include your organization ID and the session ID you are asking about.