Two products from one software partner. One holds everything your clients tell you. The other proves whether it is true. Together they turn anti money laundering compliance from weeks of typing and chasing into a decision you make with the evidence in front of you
Where the two differ is where the real findings are
Ask any compliance officer in a practice what onboarding a corporate client actually costs, and almost none of it is judgment
It is sending the form. Chasing the documents. Chasing the two directors who are abroad. Typing the company into the practice system. Typing it again into a compliance tool. Checking names against lists by hand, one at a time. Working out who really owns it through three layers of holding companies. Then doing the whole thing again next year, for every client, because the file has to stay current
And at the end of it, the question an inspector asks is not whether you were diligent. It is whether you can show what you checked, when, and what you concluded
Most firms are not short of diligence. They are short of evidence that it happened
The onboarding form your firm designs. The client portal where their staff log in. The company record with its directors, shareholders, beneficial owners and secretary. Turnover, countries, source of funds, business activities. Every certificate and passport they upload. Your own client relationship, your invoicing, your tasks, in one place
Visit ixxohub.comEvery party screened against sanctions and politically exposed person data. Ownership walked to the natural persons behind the structure, with exact percentages. Risk scored from the evidence, factor by factor, with every input recorded. Continuous monitoring afterwards. Every decision sealed in an audit chain. Adverse media screening follows in release 1.1.0, now in final testing
DueCheck overviewThe division matters more than either half. Hub records the declaration. DueCheck establishes the fact. Because they are separate, the difference between them can be seen, and that difference is where the real findings are
These six steps describe IXXO Hub and DueCheck working together. The connection between them is in development, so this section carries the Planned label until it is live. Everything else on this page describes what each product does today
Side by side comparison: planned, with the IXXO Hub connection
Your client ticks "not a politically exposed person". The screening finds a match. Your client declares one beneficial owner. The shareholding implies a second. Your client types a passport number. The document reader takes a different number off the passport itself
Each of those is a gap between what somebody said and what is actually so, and each is exactly what a supervisor is looking for. They are also almost impossible to find by hand, because finding them requires holding the declaration and the evidence side by side and comparing every field
A file that agrees with itself is a good file. A file where the difference has been found, examined and explained is a better one
This is only possible because the declaration lives in one system and the evidence is established in another, by the same software partner, with the two joined. It is not a feature that can be added to a compliance tool that never sees the client's own words
This is the table worth reading twice, because it is the shape of an inspection
| What you are asked to show | Where it comes from |
|---|---|
| Who the client is, and that you verified it | The client's own submission in Hub, with identity documents attached. Optionally verified by document reading, liveness and face match, so the record says whether a machine looked at the passport or somebody typed the number |
| Who ultimately owns or controls them | Declared in Hub. Computed independently by DueCheck through the whole structure to the natural persons, with exact percentages rather than rounded ones |
| That you screened them, and when | Every screening recorded with its date, the lists it ran against and the version of each list, so the answer can be reproduced rather than asserted |
| How you arrived at their risk rating | Scored factor by factor with every input stored, so an assessment made two years ago can be re-derived and explained today |
| That you kept watching after you accepted them | Continuous monitoring against every watched list, with alerts when something about an accepted client changes |
| That the file is current | Clients update their own details through the portal, and an accountant approves the change. Planned The checks then run again on what changed |
| That nothing was quietly altered afterwards | Every entry carries the fingerprint of the one before it. Change one and every line after it stops matching. Verified nightly |
Two of those rows are the ones firms most often cannot answer well: whether the file stayed current, and whether the record is provably unaltered. Both are handled without anybody remembering to do them
Review requests through IXXO Hub: planned, with the connection
Onboarding happens once per client. Review happens every year, for every client, for as long as you act for them. It is the larger burden and the one most often allowed to slip
DueCheck knows when a review falls due. Hub asks the client through the portal they already use. The client confirms or corrects their own details. An accountant approves the change. The screening, the ownership and the risk score all run again on what actually changed
Nobody writes a chasing email. Nobody re-keys a form. The file stays current because keeping it current is the path of least resistance rather than a task somebody has to remember
This removes the typing, the chasing and the re-keying. It does not remove the decision, and it never will
A named person in your firm assesses the client and accepts the file. Software proposes and a person disposes, everywhere in these products: an automated import proposes and an accountant approves, artificial intelligence suggests and never writes, and the person who prepares a case cannot be the one who approves it
That is not a limitation we are apologising for. A compliance file with no human decision in it is not a compliance file, and a supervisor knows that better than anyone. What changes is that you make the decision with the evidence in front of you instead of a form somebody filled in
Bring three client names to a thirty minute walkthrough. We will screen them live, walk the ownership, and show you the file a supervisor would receive
If anything we have said here does not hold up on your own data, you will know inside half an hour, which is the point