Open Source Limitations and Evidence Weight
Open AML sources are powerful when used honestly. Their value depends on source authority, freshness, coverage, identifier quality, relevance and corroboration.
1. Evidence weight scale #
| Weight | Source type | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Very high | Official list, regulator, court, government registry | UN list, UK Sanctions List, Companies House record |
| High | Recognised international body or development bank | FATF report, World Bank debarment list |
| Medium | Provenanced aggregator or investigative platform | OpenCorporates, OpenSanctions, OCCRP Aleph |
| Low as standalone | Unverified web content, social media, anonymous posts | Useful as lead only |
2. Freshness rule #
Dynamic sources must be checked close to the review date. Sanctions lists, FATF lists, company registry status, debarment lists and enforcement pages can change.
3. Coverage rule #
No public source covers everything. A missing result does not prove that there is no risk. It only proves that no result was found in that source at that time using those search terms.
4. Identity rule #
Name matches are weak unless supported by identifiers. Stronger evidence uses registration numbers, dates of birth, addresses, LEI, passport/national IDs where lawfully available, vessel identifiers, corporate numbers or other stable attributes.
5. Corroboration rule #
For important findings, use at least two source types where possible: official registry plus LEI, sanctions list plus aggregator, adverse media plus court/regulator source, investigative lead plus official record.
6. Neutral wording rule #
Write precisely:
- “listed by source X as of date Y”;
- “possible match requiring review”;
- “public-source lead requiring corroboration”;
- “no result found in source X using search term Y on date Z”.
Avoid unsupported conclusions such as “criminal”, “sanctioned”, “laundered money” or “fraudster” unless an official source directly supports that statement.