Cross-portfolio linkage
Build a relationship matrix and traverse indirect ownership paths to distinguish corporate groups from coincidental overlap.
Risk & Compliance / Portfolio Fraud Indicator Report
See the relationships a standalone screen misses.
Assess cross-entity links, ownership structures and screening exposure together to distinguish portfolio concentration from standalone concealment indicators.
Decision pathway
From connected sources to a reviewed answer
01
Connected sources
Counterparty or issuer listsFirmographic identifiersOwnership structures
02
Shared meaningDefinitions + relationships + context
03
Evidence review
A business question this workflow can support“Which counterparties share an indirect parent, and which links merit further due diligence?”
Workflow overview · not a customer outcome
The business challenge
Disconnected evidence.
Connected decisions.
Entities can appear unrelated while sharing a parent, address, officer or nominee. Conversely, routine passive-investor overlap can look suspicious without the context needed to explain it.
What your team gains
- 01Network and single-entity risk kept distinct
- 02Documented concentration and concealment indicators
- 03Screening gaps visible alongside findings
Use cases
Built for the decisions
your team makes.
Structural concealment indicators
Review circular holdings, nominees, threshold-splitting and secrecy-jurisdiction exposure alongside conventional screening.
Prioritized due diligence
Combine linkage and entity-level findings into a heatmap with a documented follow-up plan.
Honest coverage reporting
Separate an unscreened structure from a clean result, making missing evidence visible to reviewers.
How it works
A reviewable path.
Not just a result.
- 01
Link
Map direct and indirect relationships across the portfolio.
- 02
Screen
Assess each ownership structure and its screening exposure.
- 03
Consolidate
Combine network and individual-entity findings.
- 04
Investigate
Prioritize independent enhanced due diligence.
Control stays with your team.
Indicators are not proof of fraud. Findings require independent due diligence; the brief’s example portfolio is not a measured customer outcome.
Data your team brings
- Counterparty or issuer lists
- Firmographic identifiers
- Ownership structures
- Sanctions, PEP & watchlists
- Adverse media
Go deeper / Original solution brief
Portfolio Fraud Indicator Report
Assess cross-entity links, ownership structures, and screening exposure together to surface portfolio-level concealment signals.
Download PDFFrequently asked questions
Before you get started.
What data should we bring?
Counterparty or issuer lists, Firmographic identifiers, Ownership structures, Sanctions, PEP & watchlists, Adverse media. We’ll discuss available fields, source coverage and access requirements with your team.
How are findings reviewed?
Indicators are not proof of fraud. Findings require independent due diligence; the brief’s example portfolio is not a measured customer outcome.
Does the brief show verified customer results?
These materials describe solution workflows. Any example datasets, findings or industry scenarios in the PDFs should not be interpreted as measured Datapane customer results.
Related solutions
Your next step
Start with your own
business context.
Discuss this workflow, the data it needs and the controls your team requires.
Talk to Our Team