Factiva scores politically exposed persons

 

Risks exposed in enhanced tools from Factiva.

News aggregator Factiva has announced a range of enhancements to its Public Figures & Associates (PFA) service, including a tool that enables information professionals to set the risk guidance for politically exposed persons (PEP).

Factiva Public Figures & Associates (PFA) service includes a database of 500,000 senior people considered to be politically exposed persons. The database includes the relatives and close associates of these people and a detailed list of sanctions and law enforcement lists. "PEPs are unique because financial institutions are not prohibited from dealing with them, but the business impact can be significant if the organisation is found to be dealing with a 'bad' PEP, " said Claude Green, Factiva interim CEO .

The PEP Risk Score Tool is the most significant of the enhancements that have been added to PFA. A central administrator or information professional is able to set the risk guidance levels by setting out the risk criteria for that organisation. This enables an organisation to guide its compliance staff on how the accounts of PEPs should be treated and ensures they comply with company strategy.

Factiva has also developed a PEP Definition Filter which allows information professionals to manipulate the PEP definitions in accordance with local business regulations. A news search tool has also been integrated allowing PFA users to search the Factiva news archive.

Copyright ©v3.co.uk


Factiva scores politically exposed persons
 
 
 
Top Stories
Windows 10 lands in Australia
Campaign to get business to upgrade kicks off.
 
NSW to build its own myGov
Service NSW digital profiles available by September.
 
Android bug leaves a billion phones open to attack
Hackers only need phone number to target devices.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Should law enforcement be able to buy and use exploits?



   |   View results
Yes
  14%
 
No
  51%
 
Only in special circumstances
  17%
 
Yes, but with more transparency
  18%
TOTAL VOTES: 763

Vote