Deep Research
The next step in AML is not searching more lists and stapling printouts into a file. It is getting the investigation done: the registries opened, the press read, the ownership traced, the findings adjudicated and the report written, with every statement carrying its source, in hours instead of days.
Deep Research is the third screening engine in COX, next to list search and adverse media. It does not replace them: it takes what they found and establishes what it means, so the decision can be defended months later.
What changes for your team
A list search tells you whether a name appears somewhere. Deep Research does the work that comes after, the part that used to cost an analyst a week.
Hours of investigation, done
Opening public registries, reading years of press, tracing who owns what and writing it up: the engine does it and the analyst reads a report instead of building one.
A file that is ready to hand over
The report is the document a bank, a correspondent or a supervisor asks for: sources cited, gaps declared, PEP status stated, chronology in order.
Decisions you can defend
Every finding is confirmed or discarded by a person, with a reason, before it touches the risk level. Nothing in the file is an automated conclusion.
Pay per case, not per seat
Three scopes, paid with the same COX credits. A firm that needs two investigations a year pays for two, with no contract and no minimum.
When a list search is not the answer
A list search tells you whether a name appears somewhere. These are the moments where that is where the work starts.
A hit you have to adjudicate
The name matches, the identifiers do not, and the file cannot say yes or no. The investigation looks for what tells the two people apart, and says so when it cannot find it.
A file that requires enhanced due diligence
A politically exposed person, a high-risk jurisdiction or an ownership structure you cannot see through. The report documents what was searched, not only what was found.
A counterparty with no history
A prospect, a supplier or a correspondent you have never onboarded. There is no internal record to lean on, and the report says that instead of treating it as a clean result.
Where it is used
Six situations our customers bring to the engine, with clients, suppliers and counterparties alike.
A new corporate client with opaque ownership
A company registered in one country, owned from another, with a director who appears in three registries. The report traces each layer to the filing it came from and names the beneficial owner the file must record, or states that no public source establishes it.
A supplier that also sells to the State
A supplier listed in a public procurement registry is exposed to public funds, which triggers enhanced due diligence. The report separates that exposure from a sanction or a debarment, so the file says exactly what kind of risk it carries.
A hit on a namesake
The list search returns a name that matches and identifiers that do not. Instead of a note saying it was probably someone else, the file gets an investigation that tells the two people apart, or says it could not.
A relative of a politically exposed person
The client is not on any PEP list, but the surname and the city are those of a minister. The report establishes the link, or its absence, and declares the PEP status the file must carry either way.
A foreign counterparty with no history
A correspondent, a distributor or an investor you have never onboarded, in a jurisdiction where you have no one to ask. The report lists what was consulted, what answered and what did not, so a silent registry reads as a gap and not as a clean result.
The periodic review of a high-risk client
Two years after onboarding, the regulator expects the file to be current. A new investigation cites the previous one, shows what changed and brings the review date forward if a measure expired, instead of pushing it back.
What the report says, and how it says it
A report that only lists findings cannot be audited. This one states how it obtained them.
Every statement carries its source
Each finding names the source that supports it and the date it was consulted. A conclusion without a source does not reach the report.
A log of what was consulted, and what failed
Sources that did not answer are listed as such. A registry that was down is a gap in the search, not a clean result, and the report refuses to present it as one.
PEP status declared on every report
Including a clean one. A report that stays silent about political exposure leaves the reader guessing whether it was checked.
Identity confirmed only when something confirms it
If the file holds no strong identifier that sustains the match, the report withdraws the claim instead of asserting an identity nobody established.
Ownership structure and links
Who owns the entity, who controls it and who it is connected to, with each layer attributed to the registry or filing it came from.
Measures told apart, not lumped together
A sanction, a tax listing, a debarment and an exclusion from public contracting are four different things, and each one states who it falls on.
Chronology of the subject
What happened and when, so a finding from a decade ago is not read with the weight of one from last month.
Adverse media and judicial records
Press coverage and court records are read against the subject's own identifiers, so a namesake does not end up in your file.
Three scopes, so you pay for the depth you need
The same engine and the same evidence rules in all three. What changes is how far the investigation goes.
Basic
Restrictive lists and adverse media of the last three years. The scope for adjudicating a hit that has to be answered today.
Standard
Adds ownership structure, PEP status and links. The scope for a file that has to hold up in an enhanced due diligence review.
Exhaustive
Adds full chronology, judicial records, public wealth and risk pattern analysis. The scope for a deliverable that leaves the building.
Nothing scores your client without a person deciding
An investigation that moved the risk level on its own would put an automated conclusion in a file a regulator will read.
Finding by finding adjudication
The analyst confirms or discards each finding before it touches the risk assessment, and discarding one requires a reason just as confirming it does.
Nothing re-runs on its own
A run costs credits and real money. Re-verification is proposed, never triggered silently, and an expired measure brings the date forward instead of pushing it back.
The platform sustains what it asserts
Confidence counts sources, not lines, and a source appears in one section of the report. What the platform cannot support, it does not claim.
A correction never rewrites history
A revised investigation is a new record that cites the one it replaces. The previous report stays exactly as it was issued.
A report that can be checked after it leaves your office
Reports travel to banks, correspondents and supervisors. Once a PDF is out of your hands, the receiver has no way to tell an issued report from an edited copy, so COX gives them one.
- Each issued PDF carries a fingerprint. A SHA-256 of what the report says is printed in its footer and registered when the document is issued.
- A public verification page. It confirms that the report was produced by COX and states what it concluded, without reproducing its content.
- Every print leaves a trace. The file records who printed the report and when, so the copy in circulation can be tied back to a moment.
What the verification page shows
- Issued by COX Compliance, with the report number and the date.
- The SHA-256 fingerprint printed in the PDF footer, and whether it matches.
- The conclusion the report reached, without reproducing its content.
Available for obliged entities in Panama, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic.
Investigate the next name you cannot resolve
Deep Research is available with your COX credits. There is no separate contract and no minimum volume: you run an investigation when a file needs one.