Fraud, Identity & KYC/AML
We build KYC and KYB onboarding, AML transaction monitoring, sanctions and PEP screening, and fraud scoring for fintechs and financial institutions. The design lets legitimate customers move fast while risk signals route the rest to review. Rules stay in your team's hands, the engines run inside your infrastructure, and each decision carries the reasoning a regulator will ask for.
How we help
What a risk and compliance team gets from the day we ship.
Fewer false positives to clear
Your analysts spend most of their day clearing alerts that turn out to be nothing. We tune monitoring against your own transaction history and customer segments, so scoring reflects normal behavior for each group. The queue shrinks to cases that carry genuine risk, and review time goes where it counts.
Onboarding that does not turn users away
Good applicants abandon signup when identity checks stall or ask for documents twice. We build KYC and KYB flows that verify in the background, step up friction only when a signal warrants it, and pass clean cases through quickly. Genuine customers reach their first transaction, and risk teams keep control of the edge cases.
Audit trails examiners accept
Exam pressure builds when you cannot show why an alert fired or how a case was closed. We record each score, rule version, and analyst decision in one place, with the reasoning attached. When a regulator asks about a filing, the answer is already documented and ready to hand over.
What we deliver
One build per control area, each shaped around your stack and your regulator.
KYC / KYB onboarding
New customers drop off when verification takes too long or loops back for the same document. We build onboarding that checks identity documents, confirms business ownership for KYB, and screens against watchlists inside one flow. Low-risk applicants clear in seconds, and the cases that need a human land in the queue with context attached.
AML transaction monitoring
Batch monitoring that runs overnight means suspicious flows sit unflagged for hours. We build monitoring that scores transactions as they settle, against typologies like structuring and rapid movement of funds. Rules and thresholds stay in your control, so the team can adjust for a new product without waiting on an engineering release.
Sanctions & PEP screening
Fuzzy name matching floods analysts with hits that share nothing but a common surname. We tune sanctions and PEP screening with matching logic that accounts for transliteration, aliases, and dates of birth. Genuine matches surface with the source list cited, and the noise that used to swallow a shift drops down.
Device & behavioral biometrics
A stolen password looks legitimate until the account drains. We add device fingerprinting and behavioral signals like typing cadence and navigation patterns, so a session that does not match the genuine account holder raises a flag before money moves. The check runs quietly in the background and asks nothing extra of honest customers.
Fraud scoring & rules engines
Static rules go stale as fraud patterns shift, and each change waits on a deployment. We build a scoring engine that combines model output with rules your team edits directly, so a new attack pattern gets a countermeasure the same day. Each decision carries the reasons behind it, which keeps declines explainable.
Case management & SAR filing
Alerts scattered across tools and spreadsheets make a SAR or STR deadline hard to hit. We build case management that pulls alerts, customer history, and screening results into one record, tracks the investigation, and prepares the filing in the format your regulator expects. The audit trail writes itself as the analyst works.
Our technology radar
Where we stand today. The Hold ring is the one that matters: these are positions we argue against, including when a client asks for them.
The default unless there is a reason not to.
- Risk-based onboarding
- Per-transaction screening with immutable logs
- Cross-channel behavioural scoring
- Case management with an audit trail through to filing
- Versioned rules, so you can say what the system did last March
We use these on new work and watch them closely.
- Device and behavioural biometrics as a primary signal
- Graph features for mule networks
- On-prem list matching where residency requires it
We argue against these.
- Rules engines with no versioning
- KYC performed once and never revisited
- Hard blocking on name matches without human review, which is how you lose good customers to a common surname
- Storing raw biometric templates when a derived representation will do
Verify identity without building a wall
Genuine users clear in seconds while risk signals route the rest to review with full context.
How we work
Discover
Systems, constraints, and the regulation you operate under get mapped before implementation starts, so the design accounts for what already runs and for what examiners will ask about.
Architect
A design that fits your stack. Integration-first, self-hostable, and built to change as rules, regulation, and volume do.
Build
Senior engineers ship in tight increments, each tested and reviewed as it goes, so the system is reviewable at every step instead of only at the end.
Harden
Security, compliance, and load-testing run inside the build, so controls, audit trails, and peak-volume behavior are proven before launch.
Run
The handover includes clean, documented systems, with the option to keep the same engineers operating them once they are live.
Why Oxagile
Real-time monitoring built in
We build monitoring that scores activity as it happens instead of batching it overnight, so a suspicious pattern gets caught while the session is still open. The engines run inside your infrastructure and stay self-hostable, which keeps sensitive transaction data under your own controls and out of a third party's cloud.
Explainable scoring analysts can defend
A score you cannot explain fails at exam time and frustrates the customer who was declined. Each decision our engines produce carries the signals and rule versions behind it. An analyst can read why a case scored the way it did, and a regulator can trace the same reasoning without a special request.
Fewer false positives
Most compliance teams lose their hours to alerts that carry no risk. We tune thresholds and models against your own data, then measure the false positive rate as we go and keep tightening it. Analysts spend their attention on cases that matter, and the backlog stops growing faster than the team can clear it.
Audit-ready by construction
Compliance controls, audit trails, and peak-volume behavior get proven inside the build rather than bolted on after launch. When an examiner asks how a filing decision was reached, the record is already there with timestamps and reasoning. Your team walks into a review with the evidence assembled instead of scrambling to reconstruct it.
What our architects hand you
Delivered from Presales and Discovery, yours to keep whatever you decide next.
Book an architecture sessionSystem Design
Target architecture against your systems, with failure domains and the order things get built.
API contracts
Every integration point written before an implementation exists.
Compliance scope assessment
Which systems fall in scope under each option, and what the design removes.
Cloud cost model
What it costs to run at your volume, by component.
Security review
Threat model for the paths that move money or hold personal data.
Migration and cutover plan
Parallel run, reconciliation, gradual shift, and a rollback point at each step.
Questions
Common questions from risk, compliance, and product teams.
How do you keep onboarding fast without letting fraud through?
We verify low-risk applicants in the background and reserve added friction for sessions that raise a signal. Identity checks, KYB ownership confirmation, and watchlist screening run inside one flow. Genuine customers clear quickly, and the cases that need a human review arrive with the supporting data already gathered, so no one starts an investigation from scratch.
Can our compliance team change rules without waiting on engineering?
Yes. We build the rules engine so thresholds, typologies, and screening logic sit in an interface your analysts control. When a new product ships or a fraud pattern appears, the team adjusts a rule and tests it against recent data the same day. The change is versioned, so the audit trail records who changed what and when.
How do you reduce false positives in sanctions screening?
We tune matching logic to account for transliteration, aliases, dates of birth, and known good entities your business deals with. Instead of flagging on a shared surname, the engine weighs the full identity picture and cites the list behind each hit. Analysts review a shorter queue of credible matches, and the noise that consumed a shift drops.
Will the system hold up to a regulatory exam?
That is a design goal from the first sprint. Each score, rule version, and analyst decision is recorded with the reasoning attached. When a regulator asks how a SAR or STR filing was decided, the full history is already documented. We also run the controls and audit trails through testing inside the build, before the system goes live.
Do we have to hand our transaction data to a third party?
No. The monitoring and scoring engines are built to run inside your own infrastructure and stay self-hostable. Sensitive transaction and identity data remains under your controls rather than sitting in a vendor cloud. When you integrate outside data sources like watchlists, we scope exactly what leaves your environment and document it for your risk team.
Fraud & Identity, broken down
Each of these goes deeper than this page does: the systems we build, how they are put together, and what we hand over.
What we’ve shipped
Case studies for this competency are in progress.
Onboarding that converts,
controls that hold.
Where does risk cost you today: false declines, slow KYC, missed fraud? Tell us and we'll tune the system around it.