nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

🤓 Xplan Hint: Recording AML/CTF Risk Ratings

courtney.youngblutt

Did you know Xplan now includes a native AML/CTF Risk Rating workspace to help you manage the latest AUSTRAC outcome-based reforms and NZ mandates?

Why? Compliance reporting often means digging through old file notes or jumping between different screens. This update centralises that data directly within the client record. It lets you capture standard risk levels, moving your practice away from fragmented, manual workarounds and into a structured framework designed to turn complex regulatory demands into a streamlined, high-visibility part of your client management.

How? Once active, navigate to a client record and open the Key Details menu, then select the AML/CTF screen.

From here, you can:

Record a formal risk status (Low, Medium, or High).
Link the assessment straight to a specific Document Note containing your rationale.
The system then automatically snapshots the entry into a non-editable log for regulatory audits.

Because this data integrates with Xmerge and Advanced Search, you can pull an instant AML Register whenever you need it.

Read our feature overview here:

Streamlined compliance with native AML/CTF risk ratings in Xplan

💡Your site administrator will need to turn this on by enabling the View & Edit AML/CTF Risk Rating user capability.

To streamline things further for your team, you can use Managed Field Content to create a selection of pre-determined rationales. This keeps the data entry consistent across the entire practice and saves you from typing out the same compliance wording every time.

Find more posts tagged with

Client Focus

xplan hint

Comments

svincent

Hi @courtney.youngblutt, as part of the AML/CTF obligations we also need to check is the entity is a PEP (politically exposed person) and this is something we also record for each assessment, along with the Low/Medium/High rating. This doesn't seem to have been allowed for in the design - is it planned to be added?

And I noted that the searching seems to be limited to the date and reasons for fields at present. For us, and I would think plenty of other users, we also want to be able to search on the overall rating as a priority. This enables us identify patterns in assessments, entities requiring higher level assessment etc.

courtney.youngblutt

Hi @svincent, all fields in the new AML/CTF are searchable, including the Overall Risk Rating (see below).

If you don't have all the options, and you have access to field definitions, you can check if all fields are searchable on your site and if not, you can edit each field and set searchable to 'yes'. By default though, when this element was rolled out, all fields were searchable.

I'm going to 'phone a friend' and check in with @sarah.jacobs on what the thinking is around PEP (politically exposed person) and come back to you.

svincent

Thanks @courtney.youngblutt, will wait to hear waht the thinking is around PEP. I've checked and the fields are set to searchable. I was a bit slack and just went by the content in @laura.capozzi's article AML/CTF Risk Rating Best Practice which seemed to be indicating only two of the fields are searchable.

sarah.jacobs

Hi @svincent

While we haven't included PEP in the Risk Rating element itself as we've kept this fairly lightweight for the first iteration, there is a standard field already available in Xplan to capture a client's PEP status (Key Details|Politically Exposed Person) which can be added to the interface.

This article provides assistance for how to add fields onto the interface.

svincent

Thanks @sarah.jacobs We have already put that PEP field on that page in the interface, which does suffice. It makes it a static field though which doesn't reflect changes of assessment over time like the new risk rating elements do. My reflection on further iterations is that it would be good to have PEP included so we can see changes in PEP status over time - which do happen.

courtney.youngblutt

Thanks Sarah.😁

courtney.youngblutt

You're on to it @svincent! Thank you. When @laura.capozzi's article was published there were only two fields available for search. All have since been made available. I'll get that updated right away! 🙂