See the counterparty before you commit.
Assess crypto businesses and other counterparties using ownership, licensing, and financial intelligence. Connect on-chain and off-chain evidence before onboarding, then monitor what changes.
Problem
A diligence file goes stale fast.
The entity changes after onboarding.
Infrastructure, business lines, jurisdictions, controls, and relationships move while the approved file remains fixed.
Public registers leave verification gaps.
Institutions still have to assess a counterparty even when no public source confirms its licensing claim.
Self-reported files show only part of the risk.
Policies and questionnaires matter, but they do not show what the counterparty's wallets actually touch.
49 of 85
Counterparty measures
Travel Rule jurisdictions with measures for licensed, registered, compliant, or otherwise risk-mitigated counterparties in FATF's 2025 review.
Source: FATF · Best Practices on Travel Rule Supervision (opens in a new tab)
What is Ardence?
Ardence is an AI investigation platform built for all-source intelligence. For third-party risk reviews, teams can connect ownership, licensing, adverse media, and financial exposure around the counterparty.
How it works
Keep the counterparty under review.
Start
Bring existing diligence files and external intelligence into one review. See what is already known about the counterparty and where you need more evidence.
- Start with the counterparty's name and the proposed relationship
- Bring company records, screening results, and financial activity together
- Identify evidence gaps and questions for further review
Identify
Start with an independent entity profile before asking for more documents. Establish the legal entity, services, jurisdictions, licensing claims, ownership, and relevant exposure.
- Resolve the entity, operating names, principals, and owners
- Review jurisdictions, services, licences, and regulatory history
- Connect adverse media, sanctions, and on-chain exposure to source records
Assess
Compare its behavior and exposure with the institution's risk appetite and a relevant peer group. The committee needs context for deciding whether an outlier warrants enhanced review.
- Separate ownership, direct counterparty, and indirect exposure
- Compare risk with peers selected by service type and jurisdiction
- Document the policy threshold and the reason for escalation or approval
Monitor
A diligence file becomes stale as ownership, services, licensing, and financial exposure change. Bring material changes back to the team responsible for the relationship.
- Compare the current profile with the onboarding record
- Identify changes in ownership, licensing, services, or exposure
- Open a targeted review when the institution's threshold is crossed
Decide
Keep the source, confidence, exposure basis, review notes, conditions, and owner attached to the relationship record.
- Preserve the entity profile and licensing evidence reviewed
- Attach the exposure analysis, peer comparison, and committee reasoning
- Record the approval, conditions, rejection, or remediation decision
Start
Bring existing diligence files and external intelligence into one review. See what is already known about the counterparty and where you need more evidence.
- Start with the counterparty's name and the proposed relationship
- Bring company records, screening results, and financial activity together
- Identify evidence gaps and questions for further review
Identify
Start with an independent entity profile before asking for more documents. Establish the legal entity, services, jurisdictions, licensing claims, ownership, and relevant exposure.
- Resolve the entity, operating names, principals, and owners
- Review jurisdictions, services, licences, and regulatory history
- Connect adverse media, sanctions, and on-chain exposure to source records
Assess
Compare its behavior and exposure with the institution's risk appetite and a relevant peer group. The committee needs context for deciding whether an outlier warrants enhanced review.
- Separate ownership, direct counterparty, and indirect exposure
- Compare risk with peers selected by service type and jurisdiction
- Document the policy threshold and the reason for escalation or approval
Monitor
A diligence file becomes stale as ownership, services, licensing, and financial exposure change. Bring material changes back to the team responsible for the relationship.
- Compare the current profile with the onboarding record
- Identify changes in ownership, licensing, services, or exposure
- Open a targeted review when the institution's threshold is crossed
Decide
Keep the source, confidence, exposure basis, review notes, conditions, and owner attached to the relationship record.
- Preserve the entity profile and licensing evidence reviewed
- Attach the exposure analysis, peer comparison, and committee reasoning
- Record the approval, conditions, rejection, or remediation decision
Intelligence
Intelligence built for third-party risk reviews.
Entity intelligence
Review the counterparty as an organization.
Bring identity, licensing, jurisdiction, ownership, and cited adverse media into the same review.
Blockchain intelligence
See the behavior behind the profile.
Separate ownership, direct counterparty, and indirect exposure, then apply the institution's own risk categories and thresholds.
Market intelligence
Understand the activity behind the venue.
Review trading volumes, prices, and supported assets alongside the entity profile when assessing a trading platform or tokenized-asset business.
Sanctions and PEP intelligence
Review the people and entities behind a match.
Connect sanctions and politically exposed person screening with ownership and principal records. Review the source and match context to decide what needs closer examination.
All-source intelligence
Dozens of data partners. One investigation platform.
Ardence brings intelligence from TRM and specialized data providers into one investigation under a single Ardence contract.¹
Use Ardence to analyse corporate records, ownership information, licensing registers and adverse media alongside your institution's diligence files and financial evidence. Commercial partner intelligence and open-source information help teams investigate counterparty questions the profile alone cannot answer, subject to each source's permitted-use and disclosure restrictions.
¹ Provider availability varies by customer and jurisdiction. Supplemental terms may apply.
Services
Expert support and training for counterparty risk teams.
- Learn more
Investigative support
Work with TRM specialists to examine a counterparty's blockchain activity and financial exposure. Use the findings alongside your ownership research and diligence records when deciding whether to escalate the review.
- Learn more
Financial Institutions learning path
Build skills in assessing customer and counterparty risk through TRM Academy.
- Learn more
Compliance Advisory
Work with former practitioners on counterparty risk assessments, VASP diligence, and exposure analysis grounded in TRM intelligence. Use the findings to inform your institution's relationship decisions.
Community
Build a common review standard.
- Learn more (opens in a new tab)
Global Digital Finance
TRM is a listed member of GDF, which convenes an FI Crypto Working Group for financial institutions.
- Learn more (opens in a new tab)
ACAMS
TRM contributes to compliance education through ACAMS conferences, webinars, and industry discussions on financial crime and digital assets.
- Learn more (opens in a new tab)
Global Finance & Technology Network (GFTN)
TRM participates in GFTN through membership, sponsorship, and discussions that bring financial institutions, policymakers, and technology companies together.
Questions
FAQ
Start with a counterparty's name, a proposed partnership, or an existing diligence file. The review can cover a crypto business, trading venue, tokenization partner, or another third party. Bring external intelligence together with your own records to establish what is known and what needs further review.
Ardence brings corporate records, ownership information, licensing context, and screening results together with your institution's diligence files. Blockchain intelligence adds a view of the entity's financial activity and exposure. Your team assesses that evidence alongside questionnaires, policies, and audits to make the relationship decision.
Bring entity and ownership records, licensing information, sanctions and PEP screening, and market activity into the same review. Connect those findings with on-chain exposure and your institution's requirements before deciding whether to trade on a venue or work with a tokenized-asset platform.
TRM's entity intelligence and Entity Monitoring support counterparty risk reviews and monitoring. Forensics provides deeper crypto tracing and analysis. Ardence brings external data and your institution's diligence records into a broader investigation when a counterparty question needs more context.
Yes. Entity Monitoring can alert the team when a risk profile changes. The institution sets its thresholds, conditions, and review cadence, then decides whether the change requires escalation or a change to the relationship.
The institution does. TRM provides the profile, exposure intelligence, monitoring, and evidence trail. The compliance officer, risk committee, or other authorized owner approves, conditions, declines, or ends the relationship.
Insights
Guidance for reviewing crypto entities.
Key Considerations for Entity Due Diligence
Five questions for jurisdiction, licensing, exposure, supported assets, and AML controls.
VASP screening and risk assessment
How to evaluate identity, exposure, evidence, monitoring, and workflow fit.
Entity due diligence
A six-step process for identity, business activity, jurisdiction, behavior, sanctions, and monitoring.
