Read-only static demo of OD Risk — fictional data. Nothing here is live. Muted links and buttons are not part of this demo. Start
Skip to main content

Assessment: Mittenda Limited IE · Regulation: EU 2023/1113 · Roles: PSP, Intermediary PSP, CASP, Intermediary CASP

Originator information verification not validly performed before transfer

R-ORIGINATOR-INFO-VERIFICATION-FAILED
12 of 176 risks decided

Risk that the originator's PSP or originator's CASP dispatches a transfer without having validly established the accuracy of the Article 4(1) / 14(1) (and, where applicable, Article 4(3) / 14(3)) originator information before transfer, on the basis of documents, data or information obtained from a reliable and independent source. This may arise by omission, partial scope, non-reliable / non-independent source, stale evidence, late timing, wrong-record matching, failed-treated-as-passed gating inversion, missing audit trail, wrong-actor allocation (direct debit).

Linked objective

Preventing, detecting and investigating money laundering and terrorist financing. This is achieved by ensuring that the originator information accompanying a transfer is accurate and verified against reliable independent evidence before dispatch.

Observable defect

Outbound transfer dispatched without a recorded, pre-transfer, reliable-and-independent-source verification of the originator's Article 4(1) / 14(1) (and where applicable 4(3)) information.

Defined terms EU 2023/1113 Article 3 4
Payer
A person that holds a payment account and allows a transfer of funds from that payment account or, where there is no payment account, that gives a transfer of funds order.
Payment service provider
The categories of payment service provider referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, natural or legal persons benefiting from a waiver pursuant to Article 32 thereof and legal persons benefiting from a waiver pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2009/110/EC, providing transfer of funds services.
Payment service provider of the payer
The payment service provider that acts on behalf of the payer in a transfer of funds, responsible for ensuring that transfers are accompanied by required payer and payee information.
Funds
Funds as defined in Article 4, point (25), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366.
Key  · T1Tier 1. Verification IS outcome 3; failed-treated-as-passed and wrong-record modes are process-level silent corruption feeding strict screening; strict-grade by inheritance. Its 13 unique controls are the outcome's own machinery. Considering it key includes auditing its relief routes (the 4(5) deeming, both limbs) per v3 rule 2. Funds + CryptoChain seats:OriginatingReceiving
What the key-risk tier means
T1
— Key-risk tier 1 (strict) — a key risk no firm tolerance absorbs — any failure must be treated, whatever the firm's appetite.
Verification & scope assurance (CC-ASSURANCE)Verification performance & gating (CC-ASSURANCE-VERIFICATION)
What the category chips mean
Verification & scope assurance
— Level 1 taxonomy category (CC-ASSURANCE)
Verification performance & gating
— Level 2 taxonomy category (CC-ASSURANCE-VERIFICATION)
Where this risk came from

Examined against the registered documents: documented, not evidenced. What the documents show

1 — you are here

decide whether this risk applies to your firm
Does this risk apply to Mittenda Limited?

This risk is assessed in more than one way — you're deciding Funds · PSP here. The register counts it identified once all are decided.

Funds · PSP Originating, Receiving OB-EU-2023-1113-ART-4-4
— this risk is assessed in more than one way.
EU 2023/1113 Article 4(4)Before transferring funds, the payment service provider of the payer shall verify the accuracy of the… Full text

This risk is assessed in 2 ways. One relevance decision covers them all, so one analysis and one evaluation do too. Decide relevance one at a time (step 1) to work them separately.

Assess understand the risk and what's already in place

The rating bands (Low / Medium / High / Critical) and the reduction applied to them are this product's own method, not a calculation any standard prescribes.

Step 2 captured

rate the gross risk, before any controlsNot ratedupcoming Decide this risk applies to your firm first (step 1).

the risk's failure scenarios, scored into the current level12 scenariosupcoming Decide this risk applies to your firm first (the relevance decision above).
3

what's in place and how well it worksNone added yetupcoming Decide whether this risk applies to your firm first (step 1).
Step 4 captured

compare the current level to appetite, then decideNot decided
5

Key Risk Indicators + readings over timeNo KRIsupcoming Decide whether this risk applies to your firm first (step 1).

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

That is not part of this static demo.