Fintech KYC Backlog: 14,000 Cases Cleared

Fintech KYC/AML Case Study: 14,000-Case Backlog Cleared

Primary outcome (Actigy BPO-reported)

Actigy BPO cleared a backlog of 14,000 pending user verifications for an anonymized fintech client. The team held high-risk verifications under a strict 15-minute service-level agreement (SLA) and cut manual false-positive triage by 88%. The client retained risk policy and final filing decisions.

Results come from anonymized client engagements, are reported by Actigy BPO and are not independently audited. Results depend on scope.

Engagement boundary: the client in this case kept risk settings and final regulatory filing decisions; the team handled screening, triage, and case preparation.

By Actigy BPO Editorial Team Published June 14, 2026 · Last updated October 25, 2026

88%

Reduction in manual false-positive triage

100%

Audit Pass Rate

Sub-15

Minute High-Risk SLA

Based on a real engagement. The client is anonymized and some operational details are generalized to protect confidentiality; the metrics reflect the engagement as delivered.

Engagement summary

The screening team ran know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) screening for an anonymized neobank and digital asset exchange.

Delivery model: Managed operations team
Client Segment: Neobank & Digital Asset Exchange
Core Systems Intersected: ComplyAdvantage, Persona, Alloy, Jira Service Desk
Scope delivered: Identity verification, screening, alert triage and case preparation

The challenge: a growing onboarding backlog and noisy AML alerts

A viral marketing campaign drove a massive surge in new account openings at the fintech platform. Its automated identity verification engine produced a large volume of politically exposed person (PEP) and sanctions false positives. The internal compliance team could not keep up, and the onboarding backlog stretched to 6 days. Registration drop-off rose, and unreviewed transaction alerts triggered regulatory scrutiny.

Workflow and monthly volume

The screening team managed the L1 and L2 KYC/AML screening and case-preparation queues from a delivery team in Poland.

Process volume

The team handled these monthly volumes:

Identity verifications (KYC): 45,000+ customer applications evaluated monthly.
Sanctions and PEP alerts: 8,000+ automated hits cleared per month.
Enhanced due diligence (EDD): 450+ deep-dive high-risk corporate entity investigations monthly.

Team

Dedicated delivery team: 1 compliance lead, 2 senior risk analysts and 18 compliance associates. The whole team was trained on localized Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) frameworks.

Workflow

The team ran three workflow stages:

L1 document triage: Manual review of blurred, mismatched or altered government IDs that automated optical character recognition (OCR) rejected.
Sanctions clearance: Investigation of politically exposed persons and global sanctions matches with strict adverse media search logic.
L2 case escalation: Detailed EDD files for source of wealth (SoW) verification on high-net-worth clients.

Quality assurance model

The QA team built a four-eyes principle verification system. A continuous, real-time automated regression check tested every L1 clearance decision. A second analyst independently counter-reviewed every case marked for escalation or rejection. The reviews created a recorded trail for the client's oversight and audit process.

To define an evidence record for a different queue, use the Actigy BPO KYC checklist. It separates checks, exceptions and authorized customer decisions; the template does not imply that another engagement will reproduce these results.

Tools

Client stack: Persona, Alloy, ComplyAdvantage, internal admin consoles.
Proprietary workflow tools: Actigy BPO Shield (automated entity extraction and adverse-media indexing macros).

What stayed with the client

The client's Chief Compliance Officer kept full authority over risk tolerance settings, platform rule configurations and final Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filings. The screening team never filed directly with regulatory bodies. The team delivered structured compliance packages, and only internal client stakeholders took filing actions.

Results

The figures below describe this anonymized engagement, not a forecast for another scope.

KYC and AML results: client baseline and engagement outcome (Actigy BPO-reported)
Operational Metric	Legacy Client State	Engagement outcome	Performance Delta
Backlog Verification Time	6 Business Days	14 Minutes	99.8% Latency Drop
Manual false-positive triage share	92.4% Hand-Reviewed	11.1% Hand-Reviewed	88% reduction in manual false-positive triage
Regulatory Audit Variance	3.1% Error Rate	0.0% Error Rate	3.1-Point Error Rate Drop

Additional before-and-after key performance indicators (KPIs) (Actigy BPO-reported):

Case resolution speed: The screening team cut average review time per flagged identity profile from 22 minutes to 3.4 minutes.
Backlog elimination: The team cleared a pre-existing 14,000-case backlog within the first 11 days of deployment.
Regulatory consistency: The engagement recorded 100% accuracy on external third-party audits.

How the pilot worked

The pilot team proved screening accuracy on a controlled pilot before it scaled the team.

Timeline to pilot

5 days: The team finished secure provisioning in a locked virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI). It completed compliance alignment and started a live pilot with 1,000 verification tickets.

Timeline to scale

14 days: The team reached 24/7/365 coverage across all global onboarding queues.

Services used

This engagement used two services: KYC outsourcing for identity verification and due diligence, and AML alert review outsourcing for sanctions, PEP and alert review.

Engagement outcomes (Actigy BPO-reported)

This case concerns operational screening and structured case preparation under client-held risk and filing authority. The reported SLA and audit results are engagement-specific, not general compliance guarantees.

Poland-based screening team

The screening team worked from Poland. The important scope boundaries are the stated access controls, counter-review, escalation, and client-owned final decisions.

Pilot first, scale on SLA proof

The pilot team validated screening accuracy on a controlled pilot before scaling to clear the 14,000-case backlog under SLA.

You keep the decisions

The client's Chief Compliance Officer kept risk settings, rule configuration, and final SAR decisions. The screening team handled triage and case preparation.

Reported triage and audit results

The case records an 88% reduction in manual false-positive triage and a 100% audit pass rate for this engagement. The case does not establish a comparable in-house cost or future audit outcome.

Frequently asked questions

How did the screening team clear a 14,000-case KYC backlog and reduce manual false-positive triage by 88%?

The delivery lead deployed a managed screening team with strict adverse-media, PEP and sanctions logic plus four-eyes review. The team cleared the 14,000-verification backlog, cut manual false-positive triage by 88% and held high-risk reviews under a 15-minute SLA. (Actigy BPO-reported)

Where was the KYC/AML team based - is this offshore?

The screening team was based in Poland. Whether that is nearshore or offshore depends on the buyer's location. Data residency, working hours, regulatory responsibilities, and access must be checked in the actual scope rather than inferred from the country.

Did the client keep authority over risk and SAR decisions?

Yes. The screening team handled triage and case preparation only. The client's Chief Compliance Officer kept absolute authority over risk-tolerance settings, platform rule configuration and final Suspicious Activity Report decisions.

How did the team record a 100% audit pass rate?

The QA team put every escalation through a four-eyes review with continuous regression checks against the client's rules. The team recorded a 0.0% regulatory audit variance and a 100% audit pass rate. (Actigy BPO-reported)