Counterparty Screening — Pass the Result, Not the Reasons
Share counterparty credit and sanctions decisions as ZK proofs of the result alone — never the reasons, scores, or query history. This structurally removes both the leakage risk of sharing the basis and the waste of every firm re-screening the same party.
🔔 Plan · Lemma Compliance →For credit and screening teams
End the choice between shipping the reasons and scores — moving leakage risk — and making the other side re-screen the same party, by sharing only the decision, proven.
-
Credit / compliance leads at banks, FinTechs, and crypto exchanges
-
Procurement, purchasing, and risk teams at manufacturers, trading firms, and critical-infrastructure operators running supplier vetting
-
Legal and compliance functions that need to share sanctions / credit decisions across the group and with partners
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Change what reaches the AI, and the leakage risk goes with it.
- target_company:
- Corp B
- company_id:
- 1234-567-890
- representatives:
- Tanaka, Suzuki, Yamada
- revenue:
- 1.2B JPY
- risk_score:
- 7.5/10
- risk_factors:
- …(full rationale)
- holder:
- did:lemma:org-target-B
- issuer:
- did:lemma:authority-mof
- jurisdiction:
- JP
- licenseType:
- counterparty-assessment
- disclosed:
- [judgement, basis]
- hidden:
- [score, factors, sanctions_detail]
- judgement:
- OK to transact
- ZK verified:
- ✓ VALID
Lemma lets the issuer that ran the decision (a bank, a compliance team, a credit / sanctions data provider) emit the decision as a predicate — "not on the sanctions list", "credit score above threshold", "not resident in a restricted jurisdiction" — as an independent attribute proof. The underlying data (transaction history, credit information, the full list, query history) stays under the issuer; what travels to the verifier is only the ZK proof of the result.
The receiving side (counterparty, group company, auditor, AI agent) verifies "does it meet the bar" independently, without ever touching the underlying data. When, by whom, and that the decision was issued tamper-free is fixed via a provenance anchor (docHash) and stays reconstructable years later. The duplicate-screening work across firms and the leakage / defamation risk of shipping the basis come off the same design at once.
Where this proof-issuance layer drops into your existing credit / sanctions data providers, in-house decision pipelines, or compliance workflows is what the first conversation maps out.
Choose on three criteria.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-proof — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access control only | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Masking / anonymization | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Encryption only | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
What's next
We enter through AI-adoption and data-governance support and a PoC, and stay alongside you through to operations.
- A 30-minute review — identify where in your credit/sanctions flow the decision is "untrusted because un-showable" or duplicated across firms.
- Narrow to 1–2 decisions (results) to prove — e.g. "not on the sanctions list," "credit tier at or above threshold." You don't expose the full schema; only the needed decision becomes the proof target (technically, a predicate — a true/false condition over attributes).
- Design connection and revocation — how it connects to existing credit/sanctions data sources, and how list updates and decision withdrawal (revocation) are handled.
- Prove one path via a (quote-based) PoC — confirm it works on a single decision path.
- Hands-on support from rollout through operations — existing plan tiers (Civic / Critical / Compliance) serve only as a cost reference; the setup and pricing are designed together.
To start, tell us where in your current screening the "untrusted because un-showable" risk concentrates — in the first 30 minutes. No disclosure of sensitive data is required.
The bigger picture
The bigger picture this use case belongs to.
We map use scenarios across industries and workflows by the five proofs.
See use scenarios for Regulatory Attribute in Solutions →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.