Audit methodology
A transparent view of how we select samples, test controls against money movement, and deliver ranked findings.
Built for financial audit of AML applications
Our methodology exists to answer a practical question: do the anti-money laundering applications you rely on — policies, judgments, monitoring dispositions, and escalations — hold when tested against real money flows?
Phase 1 — Scope the risk surface
We inventory products, customer types, corridors, and licences. Supervisory themes from prior examinations shape where sampling must go deeper. You leave this phase with a written scope note and an information request list.
Phase 2 — Design the sample
Populations are stratified by risk rating, product, and recency. We agree sample sizes before fieldwork so there are no mid-engagement surprises. Shadow samples are reserved when access fails on primary selections.
Phase 3 — Fieldwork & reconstruction
Reviewers examine files and alert notes, then reconstruct the financial path that should have informed each decision. Interviews clarify why exceptions were accepted. We document facts separately from opinions.
Phase 4 — Factual clearance
Draft findings go to control owners for correction of dates, amounts, and process steps. Disagreement on interpretation is recorded; disagreement on basic facts is resolved before the report hardens.
Phase 5 — Report & ranking
The final report ranks issues by regulatory consequence and, where relevant, financial exposure. Each item names a suggested owner and a realistic remediation horizon. A workshop translates the document into a working plan.
Independence boundaries
We do not sell monitoring software, implementation projects, or outsourced investigator benches. If remediation requires those capabilities, we help you define the brief — we do not bid to deliver it.
Start from methodology or from an offer
Browse audit engagements or request a scoping call if you already know the window in which fieldwork must land.