Inside this simulator
Work a queue of inbound and outbound transfers and decide which ones stop. Each has counterparty attribution, exposure hops, jurisdiction, and sanctions-list proximity attached, and you have to separate genuine risk from noise without freezing every client who once used a mixer-adjacent service.
What you'll do
- Triage transfers by counterparty attribution and exposure hop distance
- Screen against sanctions and high-risk jurisdiction flags
- Decide clear / escalate / block and write the rationale
- Review false-positive and false-negative rates in the debrief
Skills you'll evidence
- Reading blockchain-analytics attribution without over-reading it
- Understanding indirect exposure and why hop distance matters
- Writing an escalation note that survives an examiner's read
Who it's for
Advisors and compliance staff at RIAs that accept or facilitate digital-asset transfers and need working AML judgment.
Common questions
- What counts as indirect sanctions exposure?
- Funds that reached the client wallet through one or more intermediary addresses associated with a sanctioned entity or a high-risk service. Risk decays with hop distance and mixes with legitimate flow, which is exactly why a blanket 'any exposure blocks' rule produces unusable false-positive rates.
- Does completing this replace a formal AML program?
- No. It is a judgment exercise, not a compliance program. Your firm's written AML policy and its designated officer remain the operative controls.
Status: Coming soon.