Overview

Screening is the only control that acts before money moves, and on-chain money moves in seconds and does not come back. A tainted inbound transfer contaminates a whole balance in the eyes of exchanges and banks downstream, and a payment to a bad address has no chargeback.

0 to 29 is clear, 30 to 59 means proceed with caution, 60 to 79 means hold and review, 80 and above is blocked by policy. The score blends direct counterparties, indirect exposure several hops back, and behavioural signals such as wallet age and pass-through activity.

Risk is how harmful the exposure would be if true. Confidence is how sure the attribution is. A sanctions-list match is high on both. A behavioural heuristic may add a little risk at low confidence. The tainted-wallets lane shows only entries at 90% confidence or more.

Direct means the wallet transacted with the risky entity itself, one hop away. Indirect means funds trace back to it through intermediaries, two to six hops. Regulators and counterparties weigh both, so the report shows each and draws the path in the taint graph.

Open it in the Inbound lane and read the reasons. You can allow the sender if the context is legitimate, request provenance from them, quarantine the funds so they stay separate from your main balance, or block the sender. Every decision is recorded.

Anti-money-laundering regimes such as the US Bank Secrecy Act, EU MiCA and its AML package, and the UK Money Laundering Regulations expect transaction monitoring and suspicious-activity reporting; wallet screening is the on-chain half of that. Sanctions rules from OFAC and others now list blockchain addresses, which is why a sanctions match is always severe. The FATF Travel Rule requires sender and beneficiary data to accompany transfers, which screening complements but does not replace.

No. Scores are indicative and the wording is deliberately "consider" and "review". Freezing funds, filing reports and contesting decisions are human, policy-governed steps. Keep a reviewer in the loop for holds and give users an appeal path.

Wallet data linked to a person falls under GDPR-style rules. That means a lawful basis for screening, retention limits aligned with the longest record-keeping duty, commonly five years, and the right to understand and contest automated decisions, which the plain-language reasons support.

• A licensed analytics provider's official API in place of the simulated engine, never scraping.
• A versioned policy engine per jurisdiction and wallet group.
• A server-side, immutable audit trail of every screen and decision.
• Case management with four-eyes approval and a path to suspicious-activity reports.
• Travel Rule messaging through a network, model validation, access control, and periodic independent review.

It is simulated and deterministic per address, with synthetic addresses, so you can explore the experience safely. Swap in a provider's official API in server.js and return the same result shape to go live.