

A major European-domiciled Cryptoasset Exchange with global reach required a gap analysis to identify all deficiencies in their Customer Risk Rating Model and a roadmap for improving it.
Crypto & Digital Assets
Financial Crime Framework Review and Enhancement
A major European-domiciled Cryptoasset Exchange with global reach.
The client had a requirement to design a new AML Customer Risk Rating Methodology (RRM) to facilitate the risk assessment of its customers.
Lysis conducted a gap analysis to identify all the deficiencies of the current risk rating methodology. A roadmap was subsequently designed which laid out a plan for implementing the suggested enhancements. The process included an in-depth analysis to demonstrate the various cross-jurisdictional compliance requirements, including the identification and weighting of those risk factors specific to their business and industry. The next step consisted of the testing of a new Customer Risk Rating Methodology on a sample of the client's customers to determine the impact on their Customer AML Risk Rating and thereby ensuring that the results aligned with expectations in terms of the Risk-based Approach. Lastly, Lysis conducted User Acceptance Testing (UAT) of the new AML Customer Risk Rating Methodology.

Lysis designed and implemented a compliance monitoring framework for a UK-regulated EMI. The aim of the framework was to ensure ongoing compliance with the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMRs), including with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (MLRs).

A global wholesale bank wished to select and implement a strategic, scalable, flexible client lifecycle management application that would be able to support the customer assessment requirements of its KYC and MiFID programmes as part of its Compliance framework.

One of our client's banks has flagged areas of our client's Ant-Money Laundering (AML) Governance and Compliance operation as a potential cause for concern. Our client asked Lysis to perform an independent review for them to establish if anything was genuinely wrong.