Not a search tool. An interrogation.

Adverse media screening is the systematic review of global news, media and online sources to identify evidence of a client's involvement in financial crime, corruption, regulatory breaches, or other risk categories relevant to your due diligence assessment. The practical challenge is not finding negative news; it is determining whether a hit is genuine, material, and attributable to the correct individual or entity. I2G™ addresses this with three mechanisms: AI confidence scoring on each match, quantifying how certain the system is that the article refers to your specific client; automatic extraction of only the relevant sentence from each article, eliminating the need to read thousands of words per alert; and a probable absolution flag that identifies articles indicating the subject was cleared, acquitted or exonerated, ensuring your assessment is balanced and defensible, not simply a list of unverified accusations.

Yes. I2G™ screens against the FIC Targeted Financial Sanctions List, the domestic list issued by the Financial Intelligence Centre under the FIC Act. South African accountable institutions are legally required to screen against this list specifically. International tools that cover OFAC, EU and UN lists but exclude the FIC SA list leave a material compliance gap for SA-regulated institutions. I2G™ covers 12+ sanctions lists updated daily, including OFAC (US), EU Sanctions, UN Consolidated Sanctions, the FIC SA list, the UK Sanctions List, INTERPOL-UN Security Council Special Notices, the World Bank Debarred List, the Canadian Autonomous Sanctions List, SECO (Switzerland), the US DEA List and the US Denied Persons List. Every list is checked against every entity you screen.

4th party risk refers to the exposure that flows through your direct client to the entities your client is connected to: subsidiaries, parent companies, sister entities and business associates. 5th party risk extends one layer further into the corporate network. While FICA does not use this precise terminology, it requires accountable institutions to understand the full nature of the business relationship, which includes understanding corporate structures, controllers, and the networks within which a client operates. Screening only the entity presented at onboarding, and not its connected network, leaves your institution exposed to risk that enters through indirect associations; this is a common finding during FIC inspections. I2G™ automatically maps the full corporate network of every entity screened, identifying and independently screening every connected node for sanctions, adverse media and PEP exposure.

The enhanced scrutiny applied to PEPs and PIPs does not automatically cease when a person leaves their public role. FATF guidance, which FICA aligns with, requires accountable institutions to apply a risk-based judgment about how long post-tenure enhanced due diligence remains appropriate. The period depends on the seniority of the role held, the jurisdiction, the nature of the business relationship, and any adverse media developments since departure. A former head of state or cabinet minister carries a materially different residual risk profile to a recently retired municipal official. I2G™'s screening database permanently retains inactive and deceased PEP profiles with clear end-date and status tagging, so your compliance team always has visibility of a person's historical public roles, not only their current status, enabling a properly documented risk-based decision.

Traditional screening tools return a binary result: hit or no-hit. The problem is that names are not unique identifiers. A common name can generate hundreds of alerts, most unrelated to your client, creating false positive overload and alert fatigue. I2G™ replaces the binary flag with a percentage-based match confidence score derived from multiple corroborating data points: name similarity, date of birth, nationality, country of residence, gender, and AI-detected unstructured data cues such as role descriptions, associated organisations and geographic references found in source documents. A high confidence score on a common name means corroborating evidence was found beyond the name alone. A low score signals a probable coincidence. This allows compliance teams to prioritise genuine alerts and dismiss noise with a documented, auditable rationale behind every decision, directly reducing false positive rates.