Back to skills
extension
Category: Development & EngineeringNo API key required

reviewing-kyc-documentation

Evaluates customer identification and verification documentation against CIP/CDD/EDD requirements. Use when reviewing KYC files, validating customer identification, or assessing customer risk.

personAuthor: jakexiaohubgithub

Reviewing KYC Documentation

Evaluates customer identification and verification documentation against Customer Identification Program (CIP), Customer Due Diligence (CDD), and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) requirements to determine whether a KYC file is complete, accurate, and risk-appropriate.

When To Use

  • Reviewing a new customer onboarding file before account opening approval
  • Periodic re-review of existing customer KYC files (annual, trigger-based, or risk-cycle)
  • Assessing whether a customer risk rating change requires EDD uplift
  • Auditing a portfolio of KYC files for regulatory exam readiness
  • Evaluating remediation files flagged by compliance monitoring

Inputs To Gather

  • Customer identification documents: government-issued ID (passport, driver's license, national ID), articles of incorporation, certificate of formation, or trust instrument for entities
  • Verification records: documentary vs. non-documentary verification method used; third-party verification results (e.g., LexisNexis, World-Check, Dow Jones)
  • Beneficial ownership declaration: ownership structure chart, UBO identification form, percentage thresholds applied [VERIFY: 25% threshold under CDD Rule; jurisdiction may differ]
  • Risk rating worksheet: initial and current risk score, scoring methodology, risk factors applied
  • Source of funds / source of wealth documentation: bank statements, tax returns, business financials, or self-certification
  • Screening results: OFAC/SDN, PEP databases, adverse media, sanctions lists — with date of last screening
  • Account activity profile: expected transaction types, volumes, jurisdictions, and any deviations flagged post-opening
  • Prior review notes: previous findings, remediation status, outstanding deficiencies

Workflow

  1. Confirm file completeness — Check that all required CIP elements are present for the customer type:

    • Individuals: name, date of birth, address, government ID number [VERIFY: specific ID requirements vary by jurisdiction]
    • Legal entities: legal name, formation jurisdiction, principal place of business, EIN/TIN, formation documents
    • Trusts/other structures: trust agreement, trustee identification, beneficiary information where required
  2. Validate identification and verification — Assess whether:

    • Documentary verification uses unexpired, legible, government-issued documents
    • Non-documentary methods (database checks, credit bureau, references) are adequately documented
    • Discrepancies between ID documents and application data are noted and resolved
    • For entities: verify legal existence through formation documents or registry searches
  3. Assess beneficial ownership compliance — Confirm:

    • All individuals owning 25% or more are identified with full CIP-level information [VERIFY: threshold per CDD Final Rule; some jurisdictions use 10% or 20%]
    • A single individual is identified as having significant management control
    • Ownership structure is diagrammed for multi-layered entities
    • Nominee/bearer share arrangements are flagged and investigated
  4. Evaluate risk rating — Review the assigned risk level against:

    • Customer type (individual, corporate, PEP, MSB, NBFI, charity/NPO)
    • Geographic risk (FATF high-risk jurisdictions, sanctioned countries, tax havens)
    • Product/service risk (correspondent banking, private banking, trade finance, virtual assets)
    • Transaction risk (expected volume, cash intensity, cross-border activity)
    • Confirm the risk rating methodology matches institutional policy and that the score is correctly calculated
  5. Review EDD where applicable — For high-risk customers, verify:

    • Source of wealth and source of funds are independently documented (not just self-declared)
    • Senior management approval for relationship establishment or continuation is on file
    • Enhanced monitoring parameters are defined (transaction thresholds, review frequency)
    • Negative news and PEP screening performed at closer intervals
  6. Check screening and ongoing monitoring — Confirm:

    • OFAC/sanctions screening was run at onboarding and is current
    • PEP screening covers the customer and all beneficial owners
    • Adverse media screening is documented with disposition of hits
    • Screening is re-run at each periodic review and upon trigger events
  7. Classify findings — Assign severity to each deficiency:

    • Critical: missing CIP element, unresolved sanctions hit, no beneficial ownership on file
    • Major: expired identification document, risk rating inconsistent with profile, EDD not performed for high-risk customer
    • Minor: formatting gaps, outdated contact information, missing secondary documentation

Output

Produce a structured KYC review report containing:

  • File summary: customer name, account number, customer type, risk rating, review date, reviewer
  • Completeness checklist: pass/fail for each CIP, CDD, and EDD element
  • Findings table: finding description, severity (Critical/Major/Minor), regulatory reference, evidence citation
  • Remediation recommendations: specific corrective action for each finding, responsible party, deadline
  • Overall assessment: file status recommendation — Satisfactory, Conditional (with remediation required), or Unsatisfactory (escalation required)
  • Escalation flags: any findings requiring SAR consideration, account restriction, or senior management review

Quality Checks

  • Every finding cites a specific regulatory requirement or internal policy section (e.g., 31 CFR 1020.220, BSA/AML Manual Section X) [VERIFY: cite institution-specific policy references]
  • Beneficial ownership analysis accounts for all layers of the ownership chain, not just the first tier
  • Risk rating review confirms arithmetic accuracy and that all applicable risk factors were scored
  • Screening results include date stamps — reject any screening older than the institution's policy window [VERIFY: typical policy is 30-90 days; confirm institutional standard]
  • No finding is marked "Minor" if it would independently constitute a regulatory violation
  • Flag any assumption or unverifiable data point with [VERIFY] rather than presenting it as confirmed
  • If the file involves a jurisdiction, product, or customer type outside the reviewer's expertise, escalate to specialized compliance staff