Onboarding vs ongoing AML monitoring
Onboarding screening checks a name before you activate the customer. Ongoing monitoring re-checks that name when watchlists change. Skipping either leaves a gap.
Choose onboarding-only if
You are in a proof of concept with no production customers yet, or a regulator has not required perpetual screening. Even then, plan the re-screen path before you go live.
Choose ongoing monitoring if
You already have a live book. List updates will otherwise leave designated parties active. Naiza AML copy describes re-screening on list updates—confirm details in docs and keep stable external ids.
How they work together
Real-time screening at signup and payout, plus batch or event-driven re-screening when lists move. See also real-time vs batch AML.
Frequently asked questions
Short answers written so search and answer engines can cite them.
Is onboarding screening enough?
It is necessary and not sufficient. Someone can be listed after they join. Ongoing monitoring covers that gap.
Does ongoing monitoring replace transaction monitoring?
No. One re-screens identities against lists. The other watches payment behavior. Run both if you move money.
What should we persist?
Customer external id, screening id, and the decision. That join is how an overnight list hit becomes a case instead of an orphan alert.