Compliance
Tools for MLROs
An MLRO doesn't just need a beneficial-ownership answer - they need to be able to defend how it was reached, months or years later, to someone who wasn't in the room.
An answer without a visible working isn't enough
"No beneficial owners above threshold" and "beneficial ownership could not be established - register closed in this jurisdiction" can look similar on a summary screen but mean very different things for risk. A tool built for an MLRO's actual job needs to preserve that difference, not compress it into a single result field. See how Keizu determines a UBO for how that distinction is structured.
Traceability back to the source
Every ownership figure should trace back to a specific register and a specific filing - not an aggregate score with no visible provenance. When a determination is questioned later, being able to point at the exact source fact it came from is what makes the record defensible.
Applying the right threshold, not a default one
The applicable beneficial-ownership threshold varies by sector and, in some cases, by an organisation's own risk-based policy. A tool that silently applies one fixed number everywhere risks either under- or over-reporting beneficial owners relative to what actually applies. See the 25% UBO threshold, explained.
Knowing when something changed
A file that was correct at onboarding and hasn't been looked at since is a growing liability, not a closed matter. See UBO monitoring and continuous due diligence.
Related
See it work on a real company.