star-1
star-2

SDD: Simplified Due Diligence

Definition

Simplified Due Diligence (SDD) is a proportionate customer due diligence approach applied by regulated entities when the assessed money laundering and terrorist financing (ML/TF) risk associated with a customer, product, transaction, or business relationship is demonstrably low.

Under SDD, institutions are permitted to apply reduced identification, verification, and monitoring measures compared to standard or enhanced due diligence, provided that the decision is justified through a documented risk assessment and remains consistent with applicable laws and supervisory expectations.

SDD does not eliminate due diligence obligations.

Instead, it tailors the depth, frequency, and intensity of controls in alignment with a risk-based approach, ensuring that resources are focused where ML/TF risk is higher while maintaining baseline safeguards for low-risk relationships.

Explanation

The concept of Simplified Due Diligence arises from the risk-based approach embedded in modern AML/CFT frameworks.

Regulators recognise that applying uniform, high-intensity controls to all customers regardless of risk is inefficient and can dilute the effectiveness of compliance programmes.

SDD enables institutions to streamline onboarding and ongoing monitoring for customers and activities that present minimal exposure to financial crime, without undermining financial integrity.

Typical SDD measures may include reduced frequency of ongoing monitoring, reliance on fewer identification documents, delayed verification in limited circumstances, or less intrusive source-of-funds enquiries.

However, SDD can only be applied where national laws explicitly permit it and where a robust risk assessment supports the low-risk classification.

If risk indicators change, institutions must immediately escalate to standard or enhanced due diligence.

Importantly, SDD is not a static classification.

Customers initially assessed as low risk may later exhibit behaviours, transactional patterns, or exposure changes that invalidate the basis for simplified treatment.

Continuous risk evaluation is therefore a core requirement.

SDD in AML/CFT Frameworks

SDD is explicitly recognised in international AML/CFT standards, particularly those issued by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

FATF Recommendations allow countries and institutions to apply simplified measures for identified lower-risk scenarios, while prohibiting SDD where higher risk is present.

Within national frameworks, supervisors typically set out the conditions under which SDD may be applied, the categories of customers or products eligible for simplified treatment, and the minimum controls that must still be maintained.

These frameworks emphasise that:

  • SDD must be grounded in a documented, evidence-based risk assessment.
  • Institutions remain responsible for identifying beneficial ownership, even if verification measures are simplified.
  • Ongoing monitoring obligations are reduced, not removed.
  • Suspicious transaction reporting obligations apply regardless of due diligence level.

SDD therefore operates as a calibrated compliance tool, not a compliance exemption.

Key Components of Simplified Due Diligence

Risk Assessment Foundation

A prerequisite for SDD is a robust institutional risk assessment that considers:

  • Customer type and profile.
  • Product and service characteristics.
  • Delivery channels (for example, non-face-to-face onboarding).
  • Geographic exposure and jurisdictional risk.
  • Transaction patterns and expected behaviour.

Only when these factors collectively indicate low ML/TF risk may SDD be applied.

Reduced Identification and Verification Measures

Under SDD, institutions may:

  • Collect a narrower set of identification data points.
  • Rely on basic identity documents without additional corroboration.
  • Defer verification until a later stage, where permitted by law.

These measures must still allow the institution to establish a clear understanding of who the customer is and the nature of the relationship.

Simplified Ongoing Monitoring

Ongoing monitoring under SDD typically involves:

  • Lower-frequency transaction reviews.
  • Threshold-based alerts rather than granular behavioural profiling.
  • Periodic reassessment of risk rather than continuous enhanced scrutiny.

Monitoring must remain sufficient to detect unusual or suspicious activity.

Common Use Cases for SDD

SDD is commonly applied in scenarios such as:

  • Government bodies, statutory authorities, or public sector entities with transparent ownership and funding.
  • Regulated financial institutions subject to equivalent AML/CFT supervision.
  • Low-value products with strict transaction limits.
  • Pension schemes, provident funds, or savings products with limited withdrawal features.
  • Customers receiving wages, benefits, or subsidies through tightly controlled channels.

The availability and scope of these use cases vary by jurisdiction and regulatory guidance.

Risks and Limitations of Simplified Due Diligence

While SDD improves efficiency, it introduces inherent limitations that institutions must manage carefully:

  • Reduced controls increase reliance on the accuracy of initial risk assessments.
  • Criminals may attempt to mimic low-risk profiles to gain access to simplified onboarding.
  • Aggregation risk may arise when large numbers of low-risk customers generate significant cumulative exposure.
  • Changes in customer behaviour may go undetected if monitoring is overly relaxed.

Institutions must therefore ensure that SDD measures are proportionate but not superficial.

Risk Indicators and Red Flags Requiring Escalation

Even within SDD relationships, certain indicators necessitate immediate escalation to standard or enhanced due diligence:

  • Transactions inconsistent with the stated purpose of the account.
  • Sudden increases in transaction volume or value.
  • Exposure to high-risk jurisdictions or sanctioned parties.
  • Attempts to obscure beneficial ownership or source of funds.
  • Adverse media or law enforcement interest emerging post-onboarding.

The presence of such indicators invalidates the basis for simplified treatment.

Examples of Simplified Due Diligence Scenarios

Low-Value Government Benefit Accounts

A bank onboards recipients of government welfare payments through a basic savings account with strict balance and transaction limits.

Given the transparent source of funds and limited functionality, SDD is applied.

If the account later receives third-party commercial payments, the risk profile changes and escalation is required.

Regulated Financial Institution as Customer

A domestic bank opens an account for another locally regulated bank subject to equivalent AML supervision.

Due to regulatory oversight and transparency, SDD measures are applied, while maintaining the ability to access ownership and governance information upon request.

Employee Salary Accounts

An employer opens salary accounts for employees where funds originate from a known corporate source and transactions are predictable.

SDD may apply initially, but personal use patterns are still monitored for anomalies.

Impact on Financial Institutions

Appropriate use of SDD delivers tangible benefits:

  • Improved customer experience through faster onboarding.
  • More efficient allocation of compliance resources.
  • Reduced operational friction for low-risk products.
  • Enhanced focus on higher-risk customers and transactions.

However, misuse or over-application of SDD can lead to regulatory findings, reputational damage, and remediation costs if low-risk assumptions prove incorrect.

Challenges in Implementing SDD Effectively

Institutions face several challenges when operationalising SDD:

  • Defining consistent low-risk criteria across business lines.
  • Aligning internal policies with evolving regulatory guidance.
  • Ensuring frontline staff correctly apply escalation triggers.
  • Balancing automation with human judgement in risk classification.
  • Periodically reviewing SDD populations for risk drift.

Strong governance and periodic independent testing are essential to address these challenges.

Regulatory Oversight & Governance Expectations

Supervisors expect institutions applying SDD to demonstrate:

  • Clear policies defining eligibility, controls, and escalation pathways.
  • Documented risk assessments supporting SDD decisions.
  • Audit trails evidencing monitoring and periodic reviews.
  • Training programmes ensuring staff understand SDD limitations.
  • Board and senior management oversight of risk-based frameworks.

Failure to evidence these elements may result in supervisory action, even where underlying customers are genuinely low risk.

Importance of SDD in AML/CFT Compliance

Simplified Due Diligence is a critical enabler of effective, risk-based AML/CFT compliance.

When applied correctly, it enhances system efficiency without compromising integrity, supports financial inclusion, and ensures that compliance efforts are proportionate to actual risk exposure.

Conversely, when applied mechanically or without adequate safeguards, SDD can create blind spots that criminals exploit.

A mature AML/CFT programme treats SDD as a dynamic control, continuously reassessed, well-governed, and tightly integrated with broader risk management and intelligence capabilities.

Related Terms

  • Customer Due Diligence (CDD)
  • Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD)
  • Risk-Based Approach
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Ongoing Monitoring
  • Suspicious Transaction Report (STR)

References

Ready to Stay
Compliant—Without Slowing Down?

Move at crypto speed without losing sight of your regulatory obligations.

With IDYC360, you can scale securely, onboard instantly, and monitor risk in real time—without the friction.

Get a Demo
charts charts-dark