Financial crime intelligence
Tracing illicit financial flows
Overview
Financial-crime and anti-money-laundering analytics that trace illicit flows across payment networks and jurisdictions. Built by the team securing systems behind billions of accounts, it delivers intelligence for financial regulators, enforcement agencies and the institutions they supervise.
Follow the money across networks and jurisdictions: AML and financial-crime analytics from the team already securing systems behind billions of accounts.
Capabilities
- Tracing of illicit flows across payment networks and borders
- Anti-money-laundering analytics for regulators and institutions
- Case-building intelligence for enforcement agencies
- Integrates with the wider financial-cyber-defence suite
- Turns raw transaction data into an evidence chain regulators and courts can act on, without depending on a foreign vendor's black-box scoring
- Deployed to protect national financial sovereignty: the ability to see and act on illicit flows through your own institutions, on your own terms
Specifications
| Type | Financial crime / AML intelligence |
| Users | Regulators / enforcement / institutions |
| Scope | Cross-network, cross-jurisdiction tracing |
| Origin | Independent / non-aligned |
In depth
Illicit money crosses the boundary
Financial-crime intelligence follows activity that does not remain inside one institution or jurisdiction. Its recorded scope is cross-network and cross-jurisdiction tracing across payment networks and borders. That scope changes the question for an analyst. An alert inside one bank is only a local observation, while a flow that moves through several payment providers may become legible only when the relationships between them are examined. The capability is built for financial regulators, enforcement agencies and the institutions they supervise. Its subject is the movement of money through financial infrastructure, not a generic compliance dashboard detached from how the payment network works.
From transaction data to a case
The listed functions cover tracing illicit flows, anti-money-laundering analytics and case-building intelligence for enforcement agencies. Raw transaction data is turned into an evidence chain that regulators and courts can act on, rather than remaining a collection of disconnected alerts. The product record also says that the system integrates with the wider financial-cyber-defence suite. That connection gives an institution a way to consider suspicious financial activity alongside the security of the payment platforms carrying it, while keeping the investigative function distinct from threat response. Regulators can use the cross-network view for supervision, enforcement agencies can use it to build cases, and institutions can use the analysis within their own control responsibilities.
Practitioner-built, buyer-accountable
The capability comes from practitioners defending live payment networks, including systems recorded as securing billions of accounts. That is the stated difference from a compliance-checkbox vendor. The catalogue describes an independent and non-aligned origin, with the analytics accountable to the regulators, enforcement bodies and institutions that own the mandate. It does not promise that every suspicious flow can be identified or that an investigation ends automatically. It provides a way to see patterns across the boundaries that illicit finance uses, produce an evidence chain, and act through the buyer's own institutions without depending on a foreign vendor's black-box scoring. Financial sovereignty here means retaining the ability to see and act on the flows in the system being supervised.
The users determine the output
A regulator needs a view that crosses the institutions it supervises. An enforcement agency needs intelligence that can support a case. A bank or payment provider needs analysis that fits the controls and data it already owns. The catalogue names all three users, so the output cannot be reduced to a single alert stream or one buyer's internal dashboard. Cross-network tracing makes the relationship between transactions visible across payment providers and borders. Anti-money-laundering analytics gives regulators and institutions a way to examine those patterns. Case-building intelligence turns the result into an evidence chain that regulators and courts can act on. Integration with the wider financial-cyber-defence suite keeps this work connected to payment-platform security without confusing financial crime with an intrusion. The independent, non-aligned origin is part of the product record because the intelligence concerns sensitive national economic data. The mandate stays with the organisations responsible for supervising, investigating and operating the financial system.
Analysis is not an isolated alert
The capability is designed to make relationships visible beyond a single institution's boundary. That is why its scope is recorded as cross-network and cross-jurisdiction tracing, and why its users include regulators, enforcement agencies and the institutions they supervise. A regulator can examine patterns across the sector. An enforcement agency can use case-building intelligence. An institution can connect the analysis to its own anti-money-laundering responsibility and the wider financial-cyber-defence suite. The stated output is an evidence chain that regulators and courts can act on, not an unexplained score from a foreign black box. The product's independent, non-aligned origin keeps responsibility for those findings with the organisation that has the legal and operational mandate to use them.
Why Unstrat: the difference
Unstrat is the authorised global representative and distributor for this capability. It is already in service with a track record behind it, so you are buying something that has done the job elsewhere, not funding a first attempt. You are not the test bed.
Independent, non-aligned origin, with no political exposure to any major-power ecosystem.
One accountable team from first briefing through delivery and in-region sustainment.
Built by practitioners defending live payment networks, not a compliance-checkbox vendor.
How it reaches you
Related capability
View all →
Procurement & sustainment
Classification and the end-user-certificate chain are confirmed before this capability is represented to your market.
Sourced from an independent manufacturer: no major-power disclosure rules or political conditions.
A single team responsible from first briefing through delivery: not a chain of foreign primes to integrate yourself.
Lifecycle support and operator training delivered in-region, building capability that outlasts the initial deployment.
Questions buyers ask
What is financial crime intelligence?
Analytics and casework that trace illicit money across payment networks and jurisdictions, and turn the result into something a regulator or a court can act on. It is investigative work rather than an alerting product. Ours is built by the team already defending payment and financial platforms behind billions of accounts, so the tracing starts from the networks themselves.
See: Financial crime intelligenceAgainst Chainalysis and Feedzai
Best tool for tracing illicit financial flows
It depends on where the money is. For public blockchains, Chainalysis Reactor is the incumbent for a reason, covering 27 or more chains and 40 million or more assets, with 1,500 or more organisations using it and 34 billion dollars or more in stolen funds frozen and recovered. For bank-side monitoring, Feedzai profiles individual behaviour rather than cohorts. Our lane is cross-network and cross-jurisdiction tracing, which is the space between the two.
AML analytics for a financial intelligence unit
A national unit needs three things: cross-institution visibility, an evidence chain that survives court, and assurance that live case material is not processed by a supplier answerable to another government. We deliver AML and financial-crime analytics for regulators, enforcement agencies and the institutions they supervise, from an independent, non-aligned base.
See: Financial crime intelligenceWho each platform is built for
How do you trace money laundering across borders and payment networks?
By working from the networks rather than from a single institution's records. Bank-side monitoring shows one participant's view, which Feedzai does well with behavioural profiling and dynamic thresholds, and chain analysis shows the on-chain leg. Cross-network tracing joins the correspondent hops, the mobile-money legs and the off-ramps into one evidence chain. We do not publish coverage figures for that yet, which is a fair thing to press us on.
Do we need separate tools for crypto and fiat AML?
Today, mostly yes, and the vendors' own documents show why: Chainalysis does not cover bank transaction monitoring, and Feedzai's AML guide does not cover blockchains. Buy the specialist tool for the dominant part of your caseload, then make sure someone owns the join between them. That join is where the laundering network is actually visible, and it is usually the unfunded part of the programme.
Will analytics evidence stand up in court?
It depends on the chain of custody and on whether a human witness can explain the reasoning. Chainalysis states its findings are presentable in court; Feedzai builds jurisdiction-standard reports on a full audit trail with two-person approval for rule changes. Our approach is to produce an evidence chain regulators and courts can act on rather than a score with no working shown. Take one closed case and ask any supplier to walk the whole audit trail.
Financial crime intelligence for a mobile money market
Mobile money is where a lot of tracing breaks, because the leg between a wallet and the banking system rarely appears in either platform's view. Our starting point is the payment networks themselves, defended in production, which is where that handover is visible. The intelligence work integrates with the wider financial-cyber-defence suite rather than sitting beside it as a separate report.
See: Financial crime intelligenceCybersecurity for financial firms
Can case material stay inside our jurisdiction?
It should be a contract term, not a hosting preference, because a case file names suspects before they are charged and reveals what the authorities know. We do not publish standard residency options for this service, so ask us in writing what can be processed in country. The same question deserves an answer from every bidder, whatever their origin.
What should a national financial intelligence unit buy if it cannot rely on a US supplier for tracing?
For pure on-chain tracing there is no straightforward substitute, and pretending otherwise wastes your time: Reactor covers 27 or more blockchains, 40 million or more assets and 325 million or more swaps. Where a national unit needs something different is the fiat and payment-network side, cross-border and cross-institution, plus assurance that live case material is not processed by a supplier answerable to another government. That is our part of the problem, and our origin is non-aligned.
How much of your financial crime work is provable, and what is just pedigree?
We should be exact about this. Chainalysis publishes concrete adoption and recovery figures; Feedzai publishes relative improvement multiples. We publish neither for this service, because it is newer than our platform work and we will not invent a recovery statistic. What we can evidence is that the same team defends payment and financial platforms behind 7.5 billion accounts in production, which is pedigree rather than a caseload record.
Our regulator wants us to explain why an alert fired. Can your analytics do that?
Our position is that findings should arrive as an evidence chain rather than as a black-box score from a foreign vendor, and that is how the work is designed. We have not published the mechanism by which an analyst sees the reasoning, which is a documented gap on our comparison page. Feedzai does publish whitebox explanations per decision and a four-eyes control on rule changes, and that is the standard to hold every supplier to, including us.
We are a regulator supervising banks that all use different monitoring platforms. How do we see the whole picture?
Not from the institutions' dashboards, which each show one participant's view. The picture forms at the network level, across correspondent hops and off-ramps, which is where our tracing works and where our team already operates defensively. Expect to combine that with whatever the supervised institutions run, rather than replacing their tooling.
Does your financial crime intelligence cover cryptocurrency?
We do not publish crypto coverage for this service, and it is listed openly as a gap on our comparison page. If your caseload is predominantly crypto, Chainalysis is the incumbent for a reason and we will say so plainly. If the caseload is payment networks, mobile money and cross-border fiat, that is our ground.
Who else can read a live case file if we buy analytics from a foreign vendor?
Whichever government has jurisdiction over that vendor, and the answer should be settled before procurement rather than after a leak. Chainalysis is a United States company holding attribution data for much of the world's crypto activity; Feedzai is Portuguese and inside the EU regime. Both are legitimate suppliers. We are independent and non-aligned, with no political exposure to any major-power ecosystem.
How does financial crime analytics connect to the rest of our cyber defence?
In our case it is one estate. The tracing integrates with the wider financial-cyber-defence suite, and the same team defends the payment networks, runs the AML engine and red-teams both. That matters when an intrusion and a laundering pattern turn out to be the same operation viewed from two angles.
See: Cybersecurity for financial firmsFinancial crime intelligence
Financial crime intelligence: questions
What is Financial crime intelligence?
Financial crime intelligence is Unstrat's Cyber (Cyber & Critical Infrastructure) capability: Financial-crime and anti-money-laundering analytics that trace illicit flows across payment networks and jurisdictions. Built by the team securing systems behind billions of accounts, it delivers intelligence for financial regulators, enforcement agencies and the institutions they supervise.
How does Financial crime intelligence work?
Financial crime intelligence delivers its effect through tracing of illicit flows across payment networks and borders, Anti-money-laundering analytics for regulators and institutions and Case-building intelligence for enforcement agencies, capabilities matched to the requirement and confirmed under briefing rather than published.
Who provides Financial crime intelligence?
Financial crime intelligence is delivered by The Cybersecurity Group, whose focus is cyber & critical-infrastructure security. Unstrat represents The Cybersecurity Group to government and enterprise buyers worldwide as an independent, non-aligned prime vendor.
Why choose Financial crime intelligence over a major-power alternative?
Financial crime intelligence is sourced from an independent, non-aligned provider, so it carries no major-power disclosure rules, upgrade-locks or political ramifications. Concretely: built by practitioners defending live payment networks, not a compliance-checkbox vendor. The capability is accountable to you, not to a foreign vendor's government and its release schedule.
How is Financial crime intelligence procured, and where can it be delivered?
Follow the money across networks and jurisdictions: AML and financial-crime analytics from the team already securing systems behind billions of accounts. Every engagement begins with a briefing, and export eligibility is confirmed per market under briefing rather than published. Where controlled capabilities are involved, the classification and end-user-certificate chain is confirmed first. Financial crime intelligence is then sustained in-region by one accountable team from briefing through long-term operation.