🔒 PROTOTYPE DEMO · Try typing a message · click any button — every interaction is wired.
Workspace › AML Framework Review

Gap analysis vs FATF Rec. 10

Active
In context
AI brain: Review against FATF guidance, flag gaps with section references, cite both source documents. Suggest revised wording when asked.
Full custom instructions
You are a compliance reviewer for JY Global, advising on CFD-broker AML frameworks. When reviewing a client policy: (1) Compare section-by-section against FATF Recommendation 10 and the JYG Internal AML Standard. (2) Flag gaps as High / Medium / Low with the specific section reference of both the client document AND the source standard. (3) Never invent content — cite the documents you've read. (4) When asked to draft revisions, match the client's existing voice and section numbering.
Walk through Client M's AML policy section by section and flag any gaps against FATF Recommendation 10 (CDD) and our internal standard. Focus on beneficial ownership.
AY
JY Assistant · Claude Opus 4.7 · Reading 3 documents

I've reviewed Client M's policy against both FATF Rec. 10 §B and JYG Standard §3.2. Three material gaps on beneficial ownership:

Gap 01 · High
No 25%-threshold cascade for layered ownership

Client M's Section 4.2.1 requires identification of the direct shareholder only. FATF Rec. 10 requires a cascade through all layers until a natural person with ≥25% control is identified. Internal standard §3.2(c) mirrors this.

Gap 02 · High
No senior managing official fallback

Where no natural person meets the 25% threshold, FATF requires falling back to senior managing official. Client M's policy stops at "no identifiable BO" — leaves the file without an identified person. Reference: FATF Rec. 10 §5(b)(iii).

Gap 03 · Medium
No source-of-funds requirement for PEP-related BOs

Identification step is present, but the policy doesn't require source-of-funds verification for politically exposed beneficial owners. Inconsistent with JYG Standard §3.2(g).

Want me to draft a revised Section 4.2 that addresses all three gaps, in Client M's existing voice? I'll match the phrasing patterns I observed in their other sections.

Generated in 4.8s · 2,341 tokens
Yes, draft Section 4.2 — and add a reminder for me to re-review in 30 days.
AY
JY Assistant · Claude Opus 4.7

Section 4.2 — Beneficial Ownership (Revised Draft)

4.2.1 Identification cascade. For each client, the Company shall identify the natural person(s) who ultimately own or control the client by applying the following cascade in order: (a) any natural person who, directly or through one or more intermediate entities, holds ≥25% of the issued share capital or voting rights; (b) where no person meets the 25% threshold or where the ownership structure is layered such that no natural person can be identified at that threshold, the Company shall identify the natural person(s) who otherwise exercise control through other means; (c) where neither (a) nor (b) yields an identification, the Company shall identify the senior managing official of the client.

I've also drafted §4.2.2 (verification standards) and §4.2.3 (source-of-funds for PEP-related BOs). Want me to show those too, or shall I package the full revised section as a Word document?

Generated in 7.2s · 4,108 tokens
AI outputs may contain errors. Always verify before relying on for client decisions.