Sanctions failures rarely show up after an account is live. They tend to start at onboarding, when a missed signal, a weak rule or incomplete ownership checks quietly let risk into the system — or, just as damagingly, block the wrong customer.
According to AiPrise, for compliance teams, that means rising false positives and escalating review queues. For growth teams, it can mean legitimate users abandoning the journey before they ever become customers.
The cost of getting it wrong is rising: in H1 2025, regulators issued US$228.8m in sanctions-related penalties worldwide, underlining how expensive early mistakes can be.
In a KYC context, sanctions are legally binding restrictions that determine who you can onboard, pay or retain. They can apply to countries and jurisdictions, but they also extend to people and entities behind an account, including beneficial owners.
In practice, sanctions controls translate into system actions: onboarding blocks when an applicant, business, or UBO appears to match a list; transaction restrictions when a payment touches a sanctioned party, country, sector or intermediary; and account freezes when sanctions apply after onboarding, forcing a halt to activity and the preservation of funds with the required reporting and audit trail. These controls typically operate at two levels: lists targeting named individuals and entities (with aliases and identifiers), and regimes that restrict jurisdictions, industries or activities.
That distinction matters operationally because sanctions management is not a simple compliance checkbox. If systems treat every sanctions scenario as the same problem, the impact shows up immediately as delayed onboarding, blocked payments and overloaded review teams. Each sanctions category has different legal triggers, response requirements and escalation paths.
Overblocking low-risk cases inflates false positives and user drop-off, while under-screening higher-risk categories creates reportable violations. One 2024 AML technology survey found false positives account for more than 90% of sanctions and transaction-monitoring alerts, driving up investigation workload and compliance costs.
The first and most common category firms encounter is economic sanctions, which restrict financial access across countries, entities and individuals and often bite hardest in cross-border onboarding and payments. In the US, the Office of Foreign Assets Control is central to enforcement and list publication, while global exposure can extend to United Nations Security Council measures and national programmes.
Screening here is not just about the customer’s country of residence or incorporation, but also beneficial owners, counterparties, payment corridors, and indirect links through ownership and control. Confirmed exposure can require immediate onboarding stops, transaction blocks and asset freezes, making precision in matching and ownership analysis essential.
Financial sanctions are a more money-and-asset focused application, designed to cut sanctioned parties off from accounts, payment rails and capital markets. These often target individuals, companies, vessels, banks or instruments rather than entire countries, and they demand real-time screening across customer and UBO identifiers, intermediaries and control relationships.
Once confirmed, the response is typically non-negotiable: freeze accounts, block payments before settlement, and meet reporting obligations with robust audit logs.
Diplomatic sanctions can function as an early warning signal rather than an automatic prohibition, but they still reshape onboarding risk. When governments restrict political engagement with another state or its officials — with policy direction often signposted by bodies such as the U.S. Department of State or multilateral action — firms may need to elevate country risk scores, tighten monitoring thresholds and trigger enhanced due diligence for customers linked to state-owned entities or politically exposed persons.
Military sanctions are narrower, but high stakes. They relate to defence, weapons and sensitive technologies, including arms embargoes and export controls. The challenge is that risk can sit in sector exposure — aerospace, defence manufacturing, dual-use goods, shipping and trade finance — not only in name screening. Controls may therefore depend on deeper KYB checks, goods and route monitoring, and trade compliance awareness alongside traditional sanctions lists.
Environmental sanctions are increasingly relevant for firms onboarding customers linked to commodities, natural resources and cross-border supply chains. These restrictions can operate through activity bans and trade measures, so screening needs to look beyond names to supply-chain exposure, shipment patterns and inconsistencies between stated business activity and trade behaviour. Monitoring may need to track changes in routes and sources over time, not simply at onboarding.
Sporting and cultural sanctions sit at the intersection of compliance and reputation. They can restrict participation, funding, endorsements or prize-related payments tied to sanctioned teams, federations, cultural bodies or individuals. Even where entities are not criminally sanctioned, payments may require additional review or blocking based on official notices and government advisories, particularly around major events when measures can change quickly.
Copyright © 2026 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst
