InScope 7.10: May 2021

New features

  • Risk Assessments for Intermediaries
  • Risk Change Trigger Setting
  • Bug Fixes

Risk Assessments for Intermediaries

In response to recent pressures by authorities in terms of risks associated with intermediaries, InScope now allows users to add companies and indivuals as named intermediaries in the ‘Delivery Channel’ section.

InScope already allowed users to create Intermediaries and associate them to clients however now this has been enhanced in order to allow the capturing of Due Diligence performed on the Intermediary, in the same way that Due Diligence is captured for other entities.

This includes:

  • Collection of Documentation
  • External Searches
  • Risk assessment
  • Assessment of connected parties

This more granular view of the risk of the intermediary means inherently that the risk score associated to the client has much greater nuance than was provided for in previous versions.

To add an entity as an intermediary, you need to head to Settings -> Delivery Channels and click add delivery channel. The system will now ask you if the intermediary is an entity in the system.

InScope 7.10: May 2021

If this option is selected, the system will ask you to select the entity (in a similar manner to other areas of the system):

InScope 7.10: May 2021
InScope 7.10: May 2021

Now when browsing the entity profile the system will warn you that the entity is linked to a delivery channel.

InScope 7.10: May 2021

If you are using simplified rules, the user will not be able to set risk scores for this delivery channel until a risk assessesment on the entity profile associated with the delivery channel has been performed.

InScope 7.10: May 2021

This will ensure that users review and clear warnings related to risk assessment prior to assigning risk values.

When adding a risk assessment, if the entity is assigned to a delivery channel, the user will be prompted to update the risk scores of the delivery channel.

InScope 7.10: May 2021

New ‘Risk Assessment Sensitivity’ setting

In previous versions of InScope, changes to the rules or to the entity profile could trigger the need for re-assessment in any previously risk rated clients. This was due to the fact that any changes to the pillar score or the overall score (irrespective of classification change) the system would generate a warning to re-assess the client.

In this version, administrators now have the ability to alter when these re-assessment warnings are generated. There are now two options:

  • All Changes – This mode forces InScope to calculate the next ‘Risk Assessment Due’ warning date if a change to either the Overall Risk Score, the Overall Risk Classification or a Pillar Risk Classification of an Entity is detected.
  • Strict – This mode forces InScope to calculate the next Risk Assessment Due warning date only if the Overall Risk Classification of an Entity was changed (i.e. and entity changes from Low to Medium, etc.)

This setting can now be located in the Risk Settings screen, under ‘General Settings’ Or by clicking the edit button seen below.

InScope 7.10: May 2021
InScope 7.10: May 2021

Bug fixes

  • Users were able to associate a custom field that is not a choice or yes/no (for example a free text field) with a risk pillar, even though these had no effect on risk scoring.
  • An ‘Empty field’ error was showing after some users uploaded documents.
  • Adding or deleting a related country type would not update in certain screens (such as the segments screen).
  • Deleting a checklist item now validates whether the item is in use in a segment.
  • It is no longer possible to create a stakeholder prior to the registration date of the entity.
  • Mobile numbers are now validated to ensure they are unique, if required.
  • Updating risk notes would sometimes fail.
  • Custom fields associated with the external searches screen could load later than the rest of the screen, which could result in errors when closing external searches.

You May Also Like

InScope 7.11: August 2021

InScope 7.11: August 2021

NCMB Consulting Case Study

NCMB Consulting Case Study

MAZARS (MALTA) -Client testimonial

MAZARS (MALTA) -Client testimonial

The Cost of AML

The Cost of AML