Skip to content
FCTFCT FORENSIC

Responsible intelligence

Diagnostic tools that run in your browser.

Five structured self-assessments built from the questions our practitioners ask first. Everything is calculated locally: your answers stay in this browser and are never transmitted to FCT unless you choose to contact us.

Jump to a tool

How these tools work. They are rule-based calculators, not predictive models or automated professional advice. Progress is saved in this browser only, each tool can be reset at any time, and any tool can be printed or saved as a PDF using your browser's print dialog.

Tool 01

Compliance Risk Assessment

Eight weighted questions across governance, risk assessment, policy, resourcing, monitoring, training, third parties and regulatory history produce an indicative 0–100 risk score with drivers and next actions.

Assessment progress0 of 8 answered
1. How clearly is compliance accountability defined at board and executive level?

Consider documented mandates, reporting lines and the seniority of the compliance function.

2. When was your enterprise compliance or risk assessment last refreshed?
3. How current and usable are your compliance policies and procedures?
4. Is the compliance function resourced for the scale and complexity of the business?
5. How is control effectiveness monitored and tested?
6. How effective is compliance training across roles?
7. How are third parties, suppliers and intermediaries assessed and monitored?
8. What has been your regulatory, audit or incident history over the last three years?

Indicative only. Scores are weighted self-reported judgements about your own controls. Results are a structured self-assessment prompt, not legal, regulatory or professional advice. Your answers stay in this browser (local storage) and are never sent to FCT unless you choose to contact us. Discuss your results.

Tool 02

AML Readiness Checker

Rate seven AML/CFT domains from level 0 to level 4 to see an indicative maturity profile, a domain radar and prioritised recommendations.

Domains assessed0 of 7 answered
1. Governance and accountability

How is AML/CFT governance structured and overseen?

2. ML/TF risk assessment

How current and business-specific is your ML/TF risk assessment?

3. CDD and beneficial ownership

How reliable is customer due diligence and beneficial ownership identification?

4. Sanctions and PEP screening

How are sanctions, PEP and adverse media screening controls operated?

5. Transaction monitoring and reporting

How effective is transaction monitoring and suspicious-transaction reporting?

6. Training and awareness

How is AML/CFT capability built across roles?

7. Independent testing and assurance

How is the programme independently tested?

Indicative only. Maturity levels are self-rated and do not represent a regulatory assessment. Results are a structured self-assessment prompt, not legal, regulatory or professional advice. Your answers stay in this browser (local storage) and are never sent to FCT unless you choose to contact us. Discuss your results.

Tool 03

Fraud Vulnerability Scanner

Review 24 control statements across six areas to produce an exposure heatmap with prioritised recommendations.

Control statements reviewed0 of 24 answered

Procurement and contracting

Suppliers are vetted, including ownership, before onboarding
Tender evaluation is documented, with segregation between requester and approver
Single-source and emergency awards are exception-approved and reviewed
Prices and contract variations are benchmarked and challenged

Payments and financial controls

Supplier bank-detail changes require independent verification
Payments above defined thresholds need dual authorisation
Duplicate, round-sum and out-of-hours payments are analysed regularly
Petty cash, advances and expenses are reconciled and reviewed

Conflicts of interest and related parties

Staff and decision-makers make periodic conflict declarations
A conflicts register exists and is actively used in decisions
Supplier ownership is screened against employee and director records
Gifts, hospitality and facilitation payments are recorded and approved

Whistleblowing and speak-up

A confidential reporting channel exists and is publicised
Reports can be made anonymously and outside the line of management
Anti-retaliation protection is documented and enforced
Reports are triaged, tracked and reported to oversight bodies

Investigation readiness

A documented investigation protocol defines roles and thresholds
Evidence preservation and chain of custody are addressed before review
Investigators are independent of the area under review
Findings feed disciplinary, recovery and control improvement decisions

Data, access and systems

Access rights follow least privilege and are reviewed periodically
Joiner, mover and leaver changes are applied promptly
Privileged and master-data changes are logged and independently reviewed
Audit logs are retained long enough to support an investigation

Indicative only. A control self-review, not a fraud audit or assurance opinion. Results are a structured self-assessment prompt, not legal, regulatory or professional advice. Your answers stay in this browser (local storage) and are never sent to FCT unless you choose to contact us. Discuss your results.

Tool 04

Regulatory Change Monitor (sample)

A demonstration dashboard showing how regulatory developments across Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and pan-African bodies can be filtered by jurisdiction and topic.

SAMPLE / DEMO DASHBOARD. Every entry below is illustrative and fictional. Nothing here is a current, verified or complete record of regulatory developments, and it must not be relied on for compliance decisions. It exists to show how structured regulatory monitoring can be organised.

Showing 9 sample entries.

KenyaAML/CFTActSample

Sample: revised risk-based supervision expectations for reporting institutions

Illustrative entry describing tighter expectations on enterprise ML/TF risk assessment refresh cycles.

In this sample scenario, supervised institutions would be expected to evidence an annual enterprise ML/TF risk assessment linked to monitoring scenarios and board risk appetite.

KenyaData protectionPrepareSample

Sample: guidance on data subject rights in investigation contexts

Illustrative entry on balancing investigation confidentiality with data subject access requests.

This sample entry illustrates how investigation protocols might need documented lawful bases, retention limits and defensible redaction practices.

UgandaAML/CFTActSample

Sample: beneficial ownership verification standards for corporate customers

Illustrative entry on stricter verification of layered ownership structures.

The sample describes an expectation to verify ultimate beneficial owners against independent sources and document the verification trail.

UgandaGovernanceMonitorSample

Sample: board accountability statements for control failures

Illustrative entry on attestation requirements following material control incidents.

In this sample, boards would attest to remediation completeness rather than remediation activity.

RwandaSanctionsPrepareSample

Sample: screening obligations for cross-border payment providers

Illustrative entry on list currency, fuzzy matching and escalation timelines.

The sample sets out documented list-update timelines and periodic screening effectiveness testing.

RwandaFinancial reportingMonitorSample

Sample: expanded disclosure of related-party transactions

Illustrative entry on identification and disclosure of related-party arrangements.

The sample describes an expectation to maintain a related-party register reconciled to supplier master data.

Pan-AfricanAML/CFTPrepareSample

Sample: regional mutual evaluation themes for effectiveness

Illustrative entry summarising recurring effectiveness themes across regional assessments.

The sample highlights supervision intensity, STR quality and beneficial ownership transparency as recurring themes.

Pan-AfricanFraud & conductActSample

Sample: procurement integrity expectations for donor-funded programmes

Illustrative entry on supplier vetting and complaints handling in grant-funded delivery.

The sample describes documented supplier vetting, conflict declarations and an independent complaints channel.

KenyaFraud & conductMonitorSample

Sample: whistleblower protection expectations

Illustrative entry on anti-retaliation safeguards and case tracking.

The sample sets out independent intake, anonymity options and reporting of case outcomes to oversight bodies.

Indicative only. This dashboard contains demonstration data only and is never presented as current regulatory intelligence. Results are a structured self-assessment prompt, not legal, regulatory or professional advice. Your answers stay in this browser (local storage) and are never sent to FCT unless you choose to contact us. Discuss your results.

Tool 05

Investigation Scope & Effort Calculator

Describe allegation types, jurisdictions, custodians, interviews, urgency and forensic technology needs to get an indicative complexity rating and person-day range.

Allegation types under consideration

Select all that apply.

Indicative scope

Contained — approximately 7–12 person-days

Complexity score 3. Person-days describe indicative effort for planning purposes only. This tool never produces a price, quote or fee estimate; scope, team composition and commercial terms are agreed in a scoping conversation.

Scoping considerations

  • Select at least one allegation type for a meaningful estimate.

Indicative only. Effort ranges are planning estimates and do not represent a fee, quotation or commitment. Results are a structured self-assessment prompt, not legal, regulatory or professional advice. Your answers stay in this browser (local storage) and are never sent to FCT unless you choose to contact us. Discuss your results.

Confidential conversation

Turn a diagnostic into a focused conversation.

Speak with our team