01
Direct touchpoints
The obvious layer: known sanctioned entities, blocked services, and listed counterparties with immediate regulatory consequence.
Sanctions exposure analysis
Applied sanctions
graph forensics.
Identify direct and multi-hop proximity to sanctioned and high-risk clusters
Direct interaction with sanctioned entities is an obvious risk, but indirect exposure through mixers, shadow services, and multi-hop paths is where the true compliance danger lies.
Exposure map
Map how compliance risk propagates beyond direct contact.
Audit-ready
02
Indirect adjacency
The operationally dangerous layer: two to five hop proximity through mixers, bridges, or shadow intermediaries that standard screening misses.
03
Propagation evidence
The defensible layer: path-aware logic showing exactly how exposure traveled so the result can survive audit and escalation.
Why standard screening fails
The danger is rarely the listed address alone. It is the financial gravity around it.
This page is built for compliance and risk teams that need to explain indirect sanctions exposure, not just show a yes or no watchlist match.
Direct exposure
Immediate interaction with attributed entities is easy to flag. It is also the least interesting problem operationally.
Indirect exposure
The real risk sits in recursive movement through mixers, high-risk VASPs, bridges, and shadow services that create material proximity without direct contact.
Defensible result
Teams need a path-aware exposure record that can be escalated to compliance, audit, or regulators with the reasoning intact.
How it works
Model sanctions risk as a graph problem, not a checklist problem.
We perform a graph-based propagation analysis, tracing funds multiple hops away from known sanctioned clusters. This reveals the "gravity" of exposure that simple flat-file screenings miss.
01
GRAVITY_ANALYSIS
Proprietary exposure modeling that identifies "financial proximity" to sanctions, even through obfuscation.
02
MIXER_DE_STRATIFICATION
Algorithms designed to track capital movement through standardized mixer outputs and temporal alignment.
03
HOPS_v5_PROPAGATION
Industry-leading multi-hop tracing that maintains accuracy and low false-positives across 10+ hops.
What gets tested
Direct exposure detection
Hop-based indirect exposure analysis
Mixer and illicit service adjacency
Risk propagation logic
Explainable scoring
Monitoring for new interactions
What moves a case to escalation
01
Proximity to OFAC-attributed entities
02
Mixing protocol exit signatures
03
Regional VASP routing anomalies
04
Wallet-reuse patterns in high-risk zones
05
Layering through non-KYC bridges
From screening to exposure record
A workflow built for escalation, not just detection.
01
Target Screening
Initial direct screening against global sanctions watchlists (OFAC, EU, UN, etc.).
02
Recursive Hop Analysis
Expanding the search to identify indirect exposure 2-5 hops away from the source.
03
Risk Attribution
Tagging indirect counterparties as known high-risk zones, such as illicit mixers or shadow VASPs.
04
Exposure Audit-Log
Generating a detailed evidence trail showing the exact path of capital between entities.
Why teams use it
Catch the indirect exposure that standard screening leaves behind.
Ensure full regulatory compliance by catching the indirect exposure risks that standard point-in-time checks consistently miss.
Exposure briefScore explanationEntity interaction mapMonitoring alerts
Team review
Use this route when the team needs to review indirect exposure logic and escalation standards.
Book sanctions reviewActive escalation
Use this route when a wallet, counterparty, or treasury flow needs immediate indirect exposure analysis.
Open exposure escalation