Why VeraZK Services Live Proof Guarantees Jurisdictions FAQ Get Started →
← All Services
📑 BANKS · FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS · VASPS

Prove monitoring and due-diligence obligations were met — across every record.

Supervisory review of an AML programme normally means opening transaction monitoring, alert queues, and customer files to an examiner. That exposes the most sensitive data an institution holds, and it still only demonstrates whatever subset the examiner sampled. VeraZK proves that monitoring, due diligence, and screening obligations were satisfied across the full population, without any customer identity or transaction amount appearing in the output.

Book a Free Pilot → See a Live Proof
FATFUAE AMLAMMCANRFMROS
The Problem

Why the current approach forces a trade-off.

The obligation and the disclosure it demands are two separate things. Today they are bundled together — and that bundling is a choice, not a requirement.

Alert data is the most sensitive file you hold
Internal alerts reveal not just customers but your detection thresholds and investigative posture — competitively and operationally sensitive well beyond the compliance question.
Coverage claims are hard to substantiate
Stating that all customers were risk-rated and all transactions monitored is easy. Demonstrating it across the population, rather than a pulled sample, is the part that fails under examination.
Frameworks diverge, obligations overlap
An institution operating across GCC, MENA, European, and Asia-Pacific regimes faces overlapping but non-identical monitoring and CDD duties.
Evaluation readiness is periodic and disruptive
MENAFATF, FINMA, and MAS supervisory reviews absorb months of compliance capacity, largely spent assembling evidence rather than improving controls.
How It Works

From your data to an independently verified proof.

The same four-step process used across every VeraZK service, configured for this proof type.

01
Configure Your Service
Select the proof service you need, map your data sources, and define the rules your data must satisfy. Configuration is declarative — a manifest file, not custom code.
02
Your Data Stays Inside Your Infrastructure
The VeraZK engine runs entirely within your own systems. Customer identifiers are irreversibly anonymised inside your hardware before any computation begins. Raw data never leaves your trust boundary.
03
The Proof is Generated
A post-quantum proof is computed over your data — proving the required properties without embedding any raw data in the output. The bundle is compact, tamper-evident, and carries a complete signed audit trail.
04
Anyone Can Verify — Independently
The regulator, your auditor, your counterparty, or any member of the public runs the verifier against the proof bundle. Verification requires no account and no call to our systems.
What This Service Does

AML / KYC Compliance in practice.

Full coverage of monitoring and screening obligations
PEP and high-risk jurisdiction screening attestation
Supports FATF, GCC, MENA, European, and Asia-Pacific AML frameworks
Evaluation-readiness for MENAFATF, FINMA, and MAS supervisory reviews
What We Guarantee

Properties of the proof system, not promises about us.

🔒 The proof cannot be forged
Producing a false proof that passes verification is computationally impossible — even for the institution that generated it. A mathematical property, not a policy.
👁️ Zero data exposure
No customer record, transaction amount, balance, or proprietary data point appears in any proof bundle. Exposure is zero by construction.
🌐 Anyone can verify
The verifier requires no account, no licence, and no contact with us. Any regulator or auditor reaches the same result independently.
🛡️ Post-quantum secure
Resistant to both classical and quantum attack. No trusted setup ceremony, no shared secrets, no single point of trust.
🔗 Tamper-evident audit trail
Every stage of the pipeline produces a signed, chained record. Tampering between stages is cryptographically detectable.
⚡ Verification in seconds
Any proof can be verified in seconds on a standard laptop. No cloud infrastructure, no specialised hardware, no GPU.
Regulatory Fit

Configured to how each regime defines the obligation.

International — FATFThe Recommendations set the baseline for customer due diligence, monitoring, and reporting that national regimes implement.
UAE — Federal AML frameworkLicensed institutions face CDD, monitoring, and suspicious-transaction reporting obligations under the federal regime and sector regulators.
Morocco — AMMC / ANRFReporting and supervisory obligations, with MENAFATF evaluation exposure shaping supervisory expectations.
Switzerland — FINMA / MROSRevised AMLA duties, with MROS as the reporting channel for suspicious activity.
FAQ

Questions specific to this service.

Does this replace our monitoring system?+
No. It proves properties of what your existing system produced. The transaction monitoring, rules, and investigations stay exactly where they are — this attests to their coverage.
Can it cover PEP and high-risk jurisdiction screening?+
Yes. PEP status and high-risk jurisdiction exposure are expressible as screening predicates over the customer population, attested the same way as monitoring coverage.
What does an examiner receive?+
A proof bundle asserting the coverage properties, plus the public parameters to check it. No alert data, no customer files, no transaction-level records.
Is this useful ahead of a mutual evaluation?+
That is one of the strongest use cases. Demonstrable population-level coverage is a materially different evidentiary position than a sampled file review.
Get Started

See a real proof, on your own infrastructure.

One day. No charge. No commitment. Your team runs the verifier before the session ends.

Book a Free Pilot Workshop →