CASE STUDY

How Building Right Beats Building Twice

A global RegTech client asked for 40 transaction-monitoring rules. When we showed them the emerging regulatory landscape, they chose to go beyond the minimally viable to a comprehensive, future-fit rule set. We delivered 254 rules. That decision will save them from having to rebuild when regulators come knocking.

Your Transaction Monitoring Rules Weren't Built for This

Traditional AML rules were designed for banks. They miss the risks regulators now prioritise: stablecoins, DeFi, ransomware, and state-sponsored cyber theft.

The compliance gaps don't surface until an examination, when it's too late.

This case study shows how we helped a leading RegTech platform get ahead of these risks, before they became enforcement actions.

From 40 Requested Rules to 254 Delivered

The brief called for "up to 40 rules." We recognised that minimum viable coverage would leave critical gaps. The result: a transaction monitoring framework that's defensible under scrutiny, not just compliant on paper.

What the full case study reveals:

• Why we anchored to FATF instead of blockchain analytics firms, and why that distinction matters for regulatory examinations
• The five-stage methodology that maps rules to 12 global regulatory bodies with page-level citations
• How we addressed stablecoins, DeFi, ransomware, and DPRK cyber theft months before FATF formalised these as 2025 priorities
• The difference between "Top 20" priority rules and the full library, and how to decide which your organisation needs
• Lessons learned that apply whether you're a VASP, a traditional FI entering crypto, or a RegTech provider

Is This Relevant to You?

Download the case study if you're:

• Operating a crypto exchange, VASP, or trading platform across multiple jurisdictions
• A traditional financial institution expanding into digital assets
• A RegTech provider building transaction monitoring capabilities
• A CCO, MLRO, or compliance leader preparing for your next supervisory examination