A remittance provider based in Spain processes around 20,000 transfers each month, mainly to Morocco and Latin America. At that volume, sanctions-screening software is not simply a database behind a search box. It affects the work analysts must complete around the customer base and the checks that take place when money is sent.
The provider had been using another screening platform, but it was expensive and false-positive reviews were taking too much time. The company wanted to replace it without losing the two control points its operation depended on. It asked us not to publish its name, so the business is described here only as a Spain-based remittance provider.
The old cost was more than the platform fee
The former platform created two related pressures. The contract itself was expensive, while the work needed to resolve false positives added an operational cost of its own. Each potential match still had to be assessed by a person before the provider could reach a conclusion.
That distinction mattered to the replacement decision. A lower software price would solve only part of the problem if analysts still spent the same amount of time working through irrelevant candidates. Equally, faster review would not address a platform cost that no longer fitted the provider's business.
The provider was therefore looking for a change it could feel in daily compliance work as well as in the software budget. Checklynx needed to support the customer relationship over time and the screening event attached to an individual transfer.
A supported migration in 2025
The provider replaced its previous platform with Checklynx in 2025. Implementation and migration took two months, with support from Checklynx.
This was a replacement rather than a new control introduced from scratch. The provider already had a customer base to monitor and a live remittance operation in which screening needed to occur when money was sent. The move had to establish both workflows in Checklynx, not merely provide analysts with another place to run an occasional search.
The result was one screening setup with two distinct moments: ongoing monitoring for existing customers, and transaction screening for the parties supplied when a transfer is initiated.
One customer base, monitored over time
The first workflow covers the provider's customer base. Checklynx Ongoing Monitoring keeps configured customer records in the screening process over the course of the relationship, rather than limiting the check to the day a customer is first reviewed.
For the provider, this means customer screening remains an active control alongside the transfer operation. It can review relevant screening changes affecting configured customer records without treating each money transfer as a substitute for monitoring the underlying relationship.
Here, “ongoing monitoring” means configured re-screening of customer records against relevant screening sources. It is not behavioural transaction monitoring across a customer's payment history. Keeping that distinction clear helps explain why the provider also uses a separate workflow when money is sent.
A transaction-screening call when money is sent
The second workflow starts with the transfer. When the provider sends money, its system uses the Transaction Screening API to send the supplied transfer parties into screening and review.
That transaction-scoped workflow preserves the relationship between the screening request and the transfer event. It gives the compliance operation a defined place to assess a potential match at the point where the information matters, while keeping the customer-base monitoring workflow separate.
Checklynx supplies screening results and review evidence; it does not make the provider's payment decision. The provider's authorised process remains responsible for resolving a candidate, applying the relevant legal and policy requirements, and deciding whether a transfer may proceed, must be held or requires another action.
The Transaction Screening API versus Sanctions & PEP API guide explains why a transaction-scoped screening record differs from a direct party check. The remittance screening solution places that workflow in the wider customer and money-movement lifecycle.
What changed for the compliance team
After the move, the provider reported 70% less time spent resolving false positives. It also reported a 60% reduction in platform cost compared with the previous screening platform.
Those two outcomes address the pressures that prompted the replacement. Less time spent on false-positive resolution gives analysts more room to focus on results that need judgement. Lower platform cost changes the commercial case for maintaining screening across both the customer base and the transfer workflow.
These figures were reported by the customer for its own comparison with the former platform. Absolute hours, prices and measurement methodology were not published; results vary.
The guide to reducing sanctions-screening false positives explains the identity data, matching and review practices that influence analyst workload.
What another remittance team can take from the move
The first lesson is to assess the customer lifecycle and the transfer event separately. A remittance provider may need configured monitoring for existing customers and a transaction-scoped check when money moves. Calling both activities “screening” does not make them the same workflow.
The second is to include analyst effort in the replacement case. Platform price is visible on a contract, but the time spent resolving false positives sits inside the compliance operation. This provider's reported results improved both sides of that equation.
The third is to treat migration support as part of the implementation. Checklynx supported this provider's move from its former platform. Another project should begin with the existing data, integrations and review process that need to move.
Connect customer and transfer screening
For a remittance team replacing an existing platform, the practical starting point is to map the two moments clearly: which customer records must remain in ongoing screening, and which supplied parties must enter the workflow when a transfer is sent.
Then compare the evidence reviewers receive, the work needed to resolve potential matches and the commercial scope of the platform.
Talk to Checklynx about remittance screening to discuss customer monitoring, transaction screening and migration requirements. The sanctions-screening software buyer guide provides a structured way to compare vendors and implementation choices.