Risk Scoring
Ayrıca şöyle anılır Customer Risk Rating, Risk-Based Approach, RBA, Customer Risk Assessment
Risk scoring, in a compliance context, is the practice of assigning a customer a rating, typically low, medium, or high, sometimes a numeric score: that determines how much scrutiny they get: how deep the onboarding check goes, how often they're reviewed, and whether extra measures like enhanced due diligence apply. It's the mechanism that makes the "risk-based approach" regulators require actually operational, rather than a slogan: instead of running the same fixed check on every customer, a compliance program calibrates effort to risk, so a low-risk domestic retail customer and a high-risk cross-border politically-exposed one get meaningfully different treatment.
The inputs that typically feed a risk score include the customer's geography (is their country on any higher-risk list), the product or channel they're using (a savings account is lower-risk than a correspondent-banking relationship), their customer type (individual vs. complex corporate structure), whether they're a politically exposed person or closely associated with one, and, once the relationship is live, whether their actual transaction behavior matches what was expected. Getting the weighting of these factors wrong is a genuinely hard, contested problem in compliance, score too aggressively and legitimate customers get over-scrutinized and churn; score too leniently and real risk slips through.
Who actually built this
FATF Recommendation 1 is the root: it requires financial institutions to identify, assess, and understand their money-laundering and terrorist-financing risks, and to apply resources proportionate to that assessment. The specific methodology most institutions actually build against comes from industry bodies rather than FATF directly: the Wolfsberg Group's published risk-factor guidance and due-diligence questionnaires are the most widely referenced translation of the principle into a working scoring model. None of this is Solidus's design.
Solidus today
Solidus does not build or offer customer risk scoring, no methodology, no tiering, no score of any kind tied to AML/CTF risk. The one thing that does exist inside Solidus Verify is much narrower and answers a different question entirely: a transparent, non-ML heuristic used only to order the queue of a Solidus customer's own failed or expired verification attempts (see Manual Review Queue), deliberately built and labeled to avoid being mistaken for the compliance concept this entry defines.
See also
AML is the compliance program risk scoring feeds. KYC and KYB are the identity/entity checks a risk score's inputs partly draw on. Sanctions Screening is one of the specific checks a risk-based program layers on top of a risk score. Level of Assurance is a related but distinct idea, how strong an identity check was, not how risky the customer is.
Nereden geliyor
Bunu başkası belirtti. Solidus bir araya getiriyor.
FATF Recommendation 1 establishes the "risk-based approach" as the organizing principle of modern AML: assess a customer's money-laundering and terrorist-financing risk, then apply controls proportionate to that risk, rather than treating every customer identically. The Wolfsberg Group's guidance, most visibly its Correspondent Banking Due Diligence Questionnaire and published risk-factor frameworks, is the widely-adopted industry translation of that principle into an actual scoring methodology: geography, product/channel, customer type, PEP status, and transaction behavior are the recurring inputs. Solidus did not design any customer-risk-scoring methodology.
Bunu nasıl doğrularsınız
Solidus bunu inşa etmedi. Girdi kavramı açıklıyor.
None. This entry states what has not been built, not what has.