Process Automation for Fintech Teams
Fintech organisations scale fast, but manual back-office tasks, disconnected compliance checks, and slow onboarding hold them back long before infrastructure does.
We build the operational layer around the vendors you already run — the queues, routing and audit trails that turn scattered checks into a process someone can actually manage.
Fintech Solutions
Comprehensive technology solutions tailored to the unique needs of the fintech sector.
Slow Onboarding
Applications stall between an identity vendor, a document upload and a human reviewer, with no single place showing which stage a given customer is stuck at or for how long.
Onboarding Systems
A single application record that carries its own state, with each verification step recorded against it as the customer moves through identity, document and risk checks.
Fragmented Tools
KYC, ticketing, document storage and the core ledger each hold part of the picture, so answering a basic question about a customer means opening four systems and reconciling them by eye.
Workflow Automation
Routing rules that assign work by risk band, escalate on age rather than on someone noticing, and hand off cleanly when a reviewer is unavailable.
Manual Approvals
Sign-off happens over email and chat, which leaves no durable record of who approved what, on what evidence, or which cases are still waiting on someone who is out of office.
Client Portals
Customer-facing and internal views over the same underlying record, so an applicant sees what is outstanding and a reviewer sees why, without a support ticket in between.
Fintech Challenges Solved
Key Fintech Use Cases
Practical applications of our technology in the fintech sector
Services behind this work
The capabilities we draw on for fintech engagements
Who this is for
Operations, compliance and engineering leads at fintechs where onboarding, review and reconciliation volume is growing faster than the team handling it — usually after a funding round, a new product line, or a licence that adds reporting obligations. It fits best when you already have the regulated components you need (an identity vendor, a screening provider, a core ledger) and the problem is the process around them rather than the components themselves. It fits poorly if what you actually need is a different compliance vendor; that is a larger decision than fixing the workflow on top of one, and we will say so.
How we work
Most fintech engagements open with a one-to-three-week discovery that maps the current review path end to end and produces a written architecture review, estimate and delivery plan you own regardless of whether the work continues. Build then runs as a dedicated team or embedded engineers, committing to your repositories with infrastructure provisioned under your own cloud accounts. Production data is not copied into development environments; access is least-privilege and tied to named individuals under a mutual NDA agreed before scoping. Where EU or UK personal data is in scope, processing terms and a DPA are agreed before any access is granted.
Expected Outcomes
Review queues that show where every case sits and who holds it. Onboarding steps that no longer depend on someone remembering to forward an email. An audit trail that records the evidence a decision was made on, not just its outcome, so a regulator's question about a specific case has an answer that does not require reconstruction. Reporting that comes out of the system rather than out of a spreadsheet assembled at month end. None of that is a promise about a percentage — it is a description of what the system does differently once the process is in software rather than in people's habits.
Fintech Tech FAQs
Can you work inside our existing compliance stack?
Usually yes, and usually by orchestrating rather than replacing it. The common pattern is connecting the KYC/AML vendors, ticketing and document stores you already run, then building the queue, routing and audit trail around them. Replacing a compliance vendor is a much larger decision than fixing the workflow on top of it, and it is rarely the cheaper of the two.
How do you handle production data during development?
Production data is not copied into development environments. Access is least-privilege and tied to named individuals, under a mutual NDA agreed before scoping, with GDPR-aligned processing terms and a DPA where EU or UK personal data is involved. Where a realistic dataset is needed to build against, we generate synthetic records that match the shape of the real ones rather than masking live data.
Who owns what we build?
You do, from the first commit. IP assignment is in the contract before development starts, code is committed to your GitHub, GitLab or Azure DevOps organisation, and cloud, DNS and monitoring are provisioned under your accounts. There is no transfer step at the end because nothing was ever held anywhere else.
Do you build the KYC or screening checks themselves?
No. Identity verification, sanctions screening and PEP checks are specialist regulated services with their own audit and coverage obligations, and building your own is almost never the right call. What we build is everything around them: the case record, the routing, the reviewer interface, the escalation rules and the audit trail that ties a decision to the evidence it was made on.
What does the audit trail actually capture?
For each case: which checks ran and when, what each returned, which documents were attached, who viewed or actioned it, what they decided, and what evidence was on screen at the time. The point of recording the evidence alongside the decision is that a question asked months later — why was this customer approved — has an answer that does not depend on the reviewer still being at the company.
Can this work if we operate in both the US and the EU?
Yes, and it usually changes the data model rather than the workflow. The obligations differ — a US customer identification programme and beneficial-ownership collection are set out in 31 CFR 1020.220 and 1010.230, while EU payment and data-protection rules impose their own requirements — so cases carry a jurisdiction and the routing and retention rules branch on it. Designing that in from the start is considerably cheaper than retrofitting it after a second licence.
Sources
- 31 CFR 1020.220 — Customer identification programme requirements for banks — US Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
- 31 CFR 1010.230 — Beneficial ownership requirements for legal entity customers — US Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
- Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions (final rule) — FinCEN, US Federal Register
- Directive (EU) 2015/2366 on payment services (PSD2) — EUR-Lex
Explore Fintech Solutions
Talk to us about streamlining your compliance and onboarding workflows.
Get StartedExplore Other Industries
Discover how we help businesses across different sectors