CBMGODemo

Priced at zero, and it reports how old the list is.

Every party on the record checked against the United States consolidated screening list — 25,939 entries of free government data. The law requires the check, so CBMGO does not bill for it.

What it does

It reports what the list says, and when the list was last brought in.

Two dates, not one. When the check ran, and how old the data was when it ran. Only the first of those is usually on screen anywhere, and the second is the one that decides whether the check meant anything.

Party screening — HBL LAX-2609-0148 4 parties
No match — 4 of 4 parties2 Sep 09:31 PT
Shipper — Marden Foods LLCNo match
Consignee — Hanpo Trading CoNo match
Notify — Hanpo Trading CoNo match
Manufacturer — Yeong-il WorksNo match
List — 25,939 entries, loaded 14 Aug 202619 days old
What the result says, exactly
No match is what the list says. It is not a finding that these four parties are fine to trade with, and the screen does not say that anywhere.
$0
Per month
Its own switch on the price list, with a zero next to it. Turning it off is possible, and CBMGO would want to know the reason.

Why it is free

The check is required by law and the list is public government data that costs nothing to obtain. Charging a monthly fee to compare a name against a file anyone can download is charging for someone else’s work. So it has a line on the price page, and the line says $0.

The decision is kept

Whatever a person decides about a hit is recorded with the check, so the file can answer the question that gets asked much later: not only what the software found, but what a human being concluded and when.

The rule this screen is built on

The age of the check and the age of the list are different questions.

A check run yesterday against a list loaded six months ago passes every inspection an office will ever face, and has confirmed nothing at all.

Fig. 1 — A check from yesterday. A list from six months ago.lib/screening.ts · lib/csl.ts
sanctions screening — two gauges, not one Check ran STALE_DAYS 1 day ago Passes List downloaded SCREEN_LIST_STALE_DAYS 182 days ago Fails — and the gauge above never looked at it. Read one gauge and it passes. Read both and nothing was actually checked. No match is not “all clear”. the OFAC fifty per cent rule blocks names that never appear on the list
Two gauges exist because one number cannot fail in both directions at once: a fresh check against a stale list passes every inspection and has compared nothing.
The same screen, six months of neglect later Passes an audit
Checked1 Sep 2026 — yesterday
List loaded 5 Mar 2026180 days old
ResultNo match
Every party passed. The check is one day old. Six months of additions to the list were never in the comparison, and nothing on a screen that only showed the first date would have said so.
The failure this screen illustrates
A green result, a recent timestamp, and no information. The only cure is putting the second date where the first one is.

No match is not clear

A company can be half owned by a listed party and not itself appear anywhere on the list. Under the OFAC 50 per cent rule that company is treated as blocked all the same. The list says nothing about ownership, so a screen that turns no match into safe is inventing a conclusion the data does not support.

So the wording on the screen is the wording of the result. No match. Four parties, one list, one date, and no adjectives added on the way out.

One hit, and a person looks

There is no confidence score that quietly dismisses a near-match, and no threshold under which the system decides on its own. A single hit goes in front of somebody, every time, and what they decide is written down.

What this does not do

Four things it will not do.

It does not clear anyone
The result is no match, or a hit. “Cleared”, “approved” and “safe to ship” are conclusions about a company, and this screen only knows about a list.
It does not know who owns whom
Ownership is exactly what the OFAC 50 per cent rule turns on and exactly what a name list does not contain. Screening a name is the beginning of that question, not the answer to it.
It does not decide a hit on the office’s behalf
No automatic dismissal of near-matches. A hit is put in front of a person and their decision is recorded against the check.
It is not legal advice, and it is not a compliance programme
It is one required check, run properly, dated honestly, at no charge. What the business does about the answer is the business’s own obligation and not something software can hold on its behalf.
Get a demo

The list’s date in an existing file is a fair question for the call.

Screening is its own switch inside ABI and it is priced at $0. A consignee screened before can be run again during the call, with both dates on the screen.

Get a demoPricing