Alert queues, closed with a record.
Monitoring rules fire thousands of alerts, most of them false positives. REMIT reads each alert with the counterparty history and typology notes, closes the clearly benign ones with a record, and escalates the rest to an analyst with the pattern already assembled.
- Workflow
- Transaction-monitoring alert disposition
- Regimes mapped
- MAS AML/CFTPDPASR 11-7DORA
What REMIT reads for this case
Alert R-17 · 30419
- Rule · Structuring
- Amount · 4 × 9,800 over 2 days
- Counterparty · Payroll provider
3 / 6
- Round amounts
- Below reporting threshold
- Rapid succession
- New counterparty
- Cash-out follows
- Prior STR
Counterparty history · CP-2210
- 3 prior alerts · all closed as false positive
- Payroll cadence · 25th monthly · 14 months
AML policy · §5.2
- Known payroll batches are excluded from structuring rules
- Any STR filing requires an analyst
This is taken care of. Here is why.
- Alert
- R-17 · Structuring
- Read from · 30419
- Counterparty
- Known payroll provider
- Read from · CP-2210
- Indicators
- 3 of 6 matched
- Read from · typology T-3
The policy that decides it
known payroll batches with an established cadence are excluded from structuring rules
AML policy §5.2
Proof record
Signature verified- Decided
- Close · false positive
- By
- Recorded automatically · analyst can reopen
- Standard
- 95% required · 96% measured
Illustrative rendering; this workflow is not yet built in the console
Alert volume is a cost problem with a number on it, and every closure must survive a regulator asking why. The system closes and routes; it never files or blocks on its own.
Illustrative scenario
A morning with REMIT
07:30
The overnight batch
Rule R-17 flags a payroll provider for structuring. REMIT reads the alert, the counterparty’s history (three prior alerts, all closed), and the typology guide, and finds the AML policy section on known payroll batches.
07:31
Closed, with a record
Known counterparty, matching payroll cadence, two of six indicators. The alert is closed as a false positive and recorded with the policy passage and history it relied on. The analyst sees it in the handled band.
08:05
An alert that could go either way
Round-amount transfers to a new counterparty, three of six indicators. Close, or escalate to level 2? REMIT hands off with both options, the indicators matched, and the KYC record that would settle it.
08:20
The analyst decides
She escalates. The record shows what was read, which indicators matched, and who made the call. Filing and blocking were never options the system could choose.
The reviewer’s daily surface
What your case officers see
Cases arrive already read, with the outcome the system is sure of or the two it could not separate. Nothing on this screen is a probability; the state is the confidence.
Needs you 3
- Verify
Alert R-04 · 30422
New counterparty — KYC refresh date to confirm
Likely — please verify.
- Hand off
Alert R-11 · 30425
Round-amount transfers, 3 of 6 indicators
Not sure — a person is on it. “Close” or “Escalate to L2”
- Refer
Alert R-09 · 30431
Pattern not in typology guide
I have not seen a case like this.
Handled without you this morning 168
- Handled
Alert R-17 · 30419
Payroll batch flagged as structuring
This is taken care of. Here is why.
What changes
For your team
The queue shrinks to what needs judgement.
Routine cases are cleared and filed with their evidence. Your people open the ones where two outcomes are possible, with the evidence already assembled.
Deadlines stop being a scramble.
Every open case shows what would make it decidable and when it is due. Requests to the customer are pre-filled from what is missing.
Audit preparation is already done.
Each decision carries a signed record: what was read, what was decided, by whom, against which standard. Export it; nothing to reconstruct.
What stays with people
- Suspicious-transaction filings, always
- Account blocks and freezes
- Any alert where closing and escalating are both plausible
Someone deliberately shaping the transaction stream can change what the cases look like, and the accuracy standard is measured on past cases, not adversarial ones. That is why filing and blocking stay with people and why the standard is re-measured on a schedule.
What you get
Delivered inside your environment
- Document intake for your channels and formats
- A model trained and measured on your own past cases
- Your list of outcomes and decision rules, agreed with your experts
- The reviewer console for your case officers
- A signed proof record on every decision
- A compliance package mapped to your regime
What the regulator gets
Every decision carries a signed record: what was read, what was decided, by whom, and against which standard. Verifiable with your own key, without us in the room.
How to start
Two weeks in shadow mode, on your own fintech cases.
REMIT is installed on one server inside your perimeter, reads and scores every live case, and executes nothing. Your people decide everything. After two weeks you read how often they agreed with it, per outcome, before licensing anything.
Ready to scope an engagement?
A 30-minute call. From there, the first paid step is an Air-gap readiness assessment or a Discovery engagement.
Start a conversation