Anonymised customer story. The customer name and detailed implementation information are withheld for confidentiality. Outcomes below are reported by the provider.
A Spain-based remittance provider processing around 20,000 transactions a month, mainly for money sent to Morocco and Latin America, replaced its previous screening platform with Checklynx in 2025. The provider reports 70% less time spent resolving false positives and 60% lower platform cost following the move.
The implementation took two months, including migration, with support from Checklynx. Today, the provider uses ongoing monitoring for its customer base and the Transaction Screening API when money is sent.
Those two uses connect the story to a practical buying decision: how to support customer screening over time and screening at the point of transfer, while controlling the cost of the platform and the work needed to review potential matches.
The customer and the operating context
The Spain-based provider serves customers sending money mainly to Morocco and Latin America. Its approximate monthly volume gives context to the operation; it is not a count of alerts, API requests or cases reviewed. A transfer can involve more than one relevant party, and transaction volume alone does not establish the size of a compliance team's workload.
For this business, screening has two separate moments. The customer relationship continues between transfers, while money being sent creates an event at which transaction parties need to enter the screening workflow. The provider uses Checklynx for both ongoing customer monitoring and transaction screening.
The story focuses on the scope of the replacement and the outcomes the provider reports. Customer names, transaction-level information and detailed implementation arrangements remain confidential.
A platform replacement with two measurable outcomes
The provider replaced an expensive previous platform. The reported results show improvement in two distinct areas: time spent resolving false positives and the cost of the screening platform itself.
These are useful measures to consider together when evaluating a replacement. Licence or subscription cost is visible in a commercial comparison, while the effort needed to resolve potential matches affects everyday operations. A procurement discussion that considers only the platform price can miss that second part of the decision.
In this case, the provider reports reductions in both areas after moving to Checklynx. The results give prospective buyers two concrete measures to consider in their own evaluation: review time and platform cost.
Two months, including migration support
The implementation took place in 2025 and lasted two months, including migration. Checklynx helped the provider with that migration as part of the move from its previous platform.
For another business considering a change, migration support is a relevant part of vendor evaluation. Alongside the software, the buyer needs to understand what must move, which responsibilities remain with its own team and how the new workflow will be evaluated before it becomes part of normal operations.
The two-month duration is specific to this implementation. Another provider's timetable will depend on the scope of its migration and integration work.
Ongoing monitoring for the customer base
The provider uses Checklynx ongoing monitoring for its customer base. This addresses screening over the customer relationship, beyond the individual occasion when money is sent.
The distinction matters when choosing software. A customer record and a transfer are related, but they represent different things to screen. Ongoing customer monitoring concerns customer records over time; transaction screening concerns the parties supplied for a particular transfer event.
For a buyer, this raises a useful planning question: which customer records need to remain in scope for ongoing screening, independently of their next transfer? The answer helps define the monitoring requirements to discuss with a vendor.
Transaction screening when money is sent
The provider also uses the Checklynx Transaction Screening API when money is sent. This brings transaction-party screening into its transfer workflow, alongside ongoing monitoring of its customers.
Transaction-party screening checks supplied parties in the context of a transaction. It is distinct from behavioural transaction monitoring, which looks for patterns in activity. The use described here does not establish automated payment approval, automated blocking or the provider's approach to those separate controls.
For teams comparing integration options, the Transaction Screening API and Sanctions & PEP API guide explains the different workflows. The remittance screening page shows how Checklynx fits into money-movement operations more broadly.
70% less time resolving false positives
The provider reports a 70% reduction in time spent resolving false positives after moving to Checklynx.
The metric concerns time spent resolving false positives, rather than the number of alerts or the total compliance workload. Absolute hours and the measurement period are not published, so the result cannot be converted into a monthly hours saving.
The commercial value is straightforward: resolving irrelevant potential matches took less of the team's time. A screening buyer can use that result to frame its own evaluation around the work reviewers must perform, rather than comparing matching output alone.
To explore that evaluation in more detail, see the guide to reducing sanctions-screening false positives. It covers practical review and calibration questions for screening teams.
60% lower platform cost
The provider also reports a 60% reduction in platform cost after replacing its former provider with Checklynx.
The figure compares platform costs; it does not establish a saving in total compliance expenditure or an overall return on investment. Contract terms and absolute amounts remain confidential.
For a prospective buyer, the useful next step is to compare equivalent scope: the customer population to monitor, the transaction-screening workflow, the required service and the commercial terms. That creates a basis for assessing whether a replacement fits the business rather than applying another customer's saving to a different contract.
The implementation at a glance
| Area | This customer's reported experience |
|---|---|
| Business | Spain-based remittance provider, mainly serving transfers to Morocco and Latin America |
| Operating volume | Around 20,000 transactions a month |
| Implementation | In 2025; two months including migration, supported by Checklynx |
| Customer screening | Ongoing monitoring for the customer base |
| Transfer screening | Transaction Screening API when money is sent |
| False-positive review | 70% less time spent resolving false positives |
| Platform cost | 60% lower cost after replacing the previous platform |
Discuss your remittance screening workflow
If your team is evaluating a replacement platform, bring the two workflows into the same conversation: how you monitor existing customers and how you screen transaction parties when money is sent. Add the review work, migration support and platform costs you want to evaluate.
Talk to Checklynx about your remittance screening requirements. We can discuss your current workflow and the scope of a possible implementation. For a structured vendor comparison, use the sanctions-screening software buyer guide.
The operational details and outcomes in this anonymised story are customer-reported and have not been independently verified for this article. No measurement methodology is published here. Results are specific to the provider's previous platform and implementation and will vary with scope, data, configuration, workflow and commercial terms. The percentages are not guaranteed outcomes, and the two-month implementation is not a delivery promise.