Prioritize the daily queue
Use tabs, filters, pagination, saved views, severity, priority, queue, assignee, and SLA state to keep analyst work visible and manageable.
Solutions / Case Management
Resolve AML alerts with controlled case operations
Turn onboarding and monitoring signals into assigned cases with hit review, evidence, escalation, timeline history, and report-ready outcomes.
Case queue18 open
HighPotential sanctions matchNear SLA
MedMonitoring hit reviewAssigned
LowFalse-positive checkSaved view
Case decisionIn review
Hit reviewPotential match
Rationale, source context, reviewer, and timestamp captured.
Evidence attachedRationale addedMLRO escalation
Audit timeline5 actions recorded
Assignment, hit review, note, escalation, outcome.
Report artifactReady
QueuesTabs, filters, saved views
ReviewHit decisions with rationale
ControlSLA, escalation, checklist
EvidenceTimeline, attachments, reports
Compliance operations
Built for ongoing compliance operations
Case management gives compliance teams a governed way to handle potential matches after screening. Each case carries ownership, status, priority, source context, notes, attachments, and the decision history needed to explain how the alert was handled.
Standardize the investigation
Review one or many hits with a decision and rationale, add notes and attachments, follow required checklist items, and keep related case context in view.
Govern exceptions and outcomes
Move cases through open, in review, awaiting information, resolved, and closed states with audited transitions, escalation controls, and report artifacts.
Investigation journey
From signal to case decision
A screening or monitoring signal becomes owned work, analysts review the underlying hits, managers can escalate or monitor SLA risk, and the final outcome remains tied to the evidence that supported it.
| Stage | Case context | Business outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Signal raised | Onboarding, customer screening, monitoring run, or manual review trigger | Potential risk becomes visible work instead of an informal task. |
| Case routed | Blueprint defaults, queue, assignment mode, severity, priority, SLA, and escalation policy | The right team owns the case from the start. |
| Hits reviewed | Match profiles, source results, adverse outcomes, rationale, reviewer, and timestamps | Analysts decide true positive, false positive, or potential match with context. |
| Investigation completed | Notes, events, related cases, attachments, checklist items, and optional financial context | Evidence is gathered in the same place as the decision. |
| Outcome recorded | Resolution outcome, reason where used, resolver, timestamp, and immutable timeline | The business can prove who decided what and why. |
| Systems updated | Case status, assignment, escalation, hit review, resolved, and closed webhook events | Downstream teams and systems stay aligned with compliance work. |
Review efficiency
Reduce repeated review work
Case management should not make analysts rebuild the same review packet every time. Checklynx keeps hit decisions, rationale, attachments, and timeline activity tied to the customer and case so future work starts from a clearer record.
Keep the queue current
Saved views, filters, tabs, SLA state, and escalation visibility help leads see what is unassigned, near breach, in review, or waiting on information.
Make decisions reusable
False-positive reviews can be tied to the customer and exact screening result, reducing the chance that the same non-risk hit returns as fresh work in later checks.
Support second-line review
Escalation targets, optional transition reasons, checklist status, related cases, and full timeline history give senior reviewers the context needed for oversight.
Prepare the evidence pack
Report artifacts can draw from the case summary, reviewed hits, rationale, attachments, and action timeline instead of scattered screenshots and notes.
| Trigger | Handoff | Business outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Unassigned or aging work | Queue filters and SLA visibility | Leads can rebalance work before review bottlenecks grow. |
| Known false positive | Customer-scoped hit decision | Analysts avoid repeating the same non-risk review. |
| Case needs oversight | Escalation and timeline context | Senior reviewers can act without reconstructing the case. |
| Governance request | Report artifact and immutable audit trail | Compliance can explain the decision record. |