Turnkey AML Screening Integration (Chainalysis, Elliptic, Crystal)

We design and develop full-cycle blockchain solutions: from smart contract architecture to launching DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces and crypto exchanges. Security audits, tokenomics, integration with existing infrastructure.
Showing 1 of 1All 1305 services
Turnkey AML Screening Integration (Chainalysis, Elliptic, Crystal)
Medium
~3-5 days
Frequently Asked Questions

Blockchain Development Services

Blockchain Development Stages

Latest works

  • image_website-b2b-advance_0.webp
    B2B ADVANCE company website development
    1349
  • image_web-applications_feedme_466_0.webp
    Development of a web application for FEEDME
    1247
  • image_websites_belfingroup_462_0.webp
    Website development for BELFINGROUP
    949
  • image_ecommerce_furnoro_435_0.webp
    Development of an online store for the company FURNORO
    1183
  • image_logo-advance_0.webp
    B2B Advance company logo design
    642
  • image_crm_enviok_479_0.webp
    Development of a web application for Enviok
    921

Turnkey AML Screening Integration (Chainalysis, Elliptic, Crystal)

A user's transaction is blocked without explanation — familiar situation? We have integrated Chainalysis, Elliptic, and Crystal in dozens of projects and know how to configure AML screening without false positives. Our experience allows us to implement FATF compliance in 2 weeks.

AML screening of cryptocurrency transactions is a mandatory compliance element for any platform working with crypto. The task: for every deposit or withdrawal, check whether the address is linked to sanctioned entities, darknet markets, stolen funds, or other high-risk activities. A configuration error can cost you your license or lead to bank partner account freezes. We guarantee correct risk logic setup and full process documentation.

Why AML Screening Matters for Crypto Projects

Regulators increasingly require crypto exchanges and exchangers to implement AML procedures. Without them, a company risks sanctions or losing access to banking services. Chainalysis, Elliptic, and Crystal are market leaders that automate real-time transaction checks. Our engineers are certified on each of these products.

Chainalysis vs Elliptic: Which to Choose

Provider Strengths Weaknesses
Chainalysis KYT Most comprehensive sanctions database, regulator integration High cost, complex API for beginners
Elliptic Lens Best DeFi coverage and cross-asset tracing Smaller Eastern European risk coverage
Crystal Blockchain Competitive price, Russian language support Fewer integrations with European regulators

Chainalysis is best for large exchanges with strict regulatory requirements, Elliptic for DeFi protocols, and Crystal for projects from the CIS. We help choose the optimal provider for your jurisdiction.

How Chainalysis KYT Works

Chainalysis is the market leader, used by most major exchanges and regulators for forensics. The API is divided into several products: KYT for transaction monitoring, Reactor for investigation, and Kryptos for entity data. Our experience includes Chainalysis Partner certification, ensuring correct setup from the start.

KYT API Integration

class ChainalysisClient {
  private readonly baseURL = "https://api.chainalysis.com";
  
  async registerAddress(address: string, asset: "USDT" | "ETH" | "BTC" | string): Promise<void> {
    await this.post("/api/kyt/v2/users", {
      userId: address,
      asset,
    });
  }
  
  async screenTransfer(params: {
    asset: string;
    network: string;
    transferReference: string;
    direction: "received" | "sent";
    userId: string;
    outputAddress?: string;
    value?: string;
    assetAmount?: number;
    timestamp?: string;
  }): Promise<TransferRisk> {
    const response = await this.post("/api/kyt/v2/transfers", params);
    
    return {
      externalId: response.externalId,
      riskScore: response.riskScore,
      cluster: response.cluster,
      status: response.status,
    };
  }
  
  async getTransferAlerts(externalId: string): Promise<Alert[]> {
    const response = await this.get(`/api/kyt/v2/transfers/${externalId}/alerts`);
    return response.alerts;
  }
  
  private async post(path: string, body: any): Promise<any> {
    const response = await fetch(`${this.baseURL}${path}`, {
      method: "POST",
      headers: {
        "Token": this.apiKey,
        "Content-Type": "application/json",
      },
      body: JSON.stringify(body),
    });
    return response.json();
  }
}

Risk Score Categories

Score Category Automatic Action
0-39 LOW Pass
40-69 MEDIUM Flag for review
70-100 HIGH Block
N/A SEVERE Block + SAR

Categories that trigger automatic blocking regardless of score:

  • darknet_market
  • ransomware
  • stolen_funds
  • sanctions
  • terrorist_financing

Processing a Deposit

async function processDeposit(deposit: Deposit): Promise<DepositResult> {
  await chainalysis.registerAddress(deposit.fromAddress, deposit.asset);
  
  const risk = await chainalysis.screenTransfer({
    asset: deposit.asset,
    network: deposit.network,
    transferReference: deposit.txHash,
    direction: "received",
    userId: deposit.userId,
    value: deposit.usdValue.toString(),
    assetAmount: deposit.amount,
  });
  
  if (risk.status === "BLOCKED") {
    await freezeDeposit(deposit.id);
    await notifyCompliance(deposit, risk);
    return { status: "blocked", reason: risk.cluster?.category };
  }
  
  if (risk.status === "IN_REVIEW") {
    await holdForReview(deposit.id);
    await createComplianceTask(deposit, risk);
    return { status: "pending_review" };
  }
  
  await creditUserAccount(deposit);
  return { status: "approved" };
}

Elliptic Lens / Navigator Features

Elliptic is a competitor to Chainalysis with similar functionality. It excels in DeFi screening and cross-asset tracing.

class EllipticClient {
  async getWalletRisk(address: string, asset: string): Promise<EllipticRisk> {
    const response = await this.post("/v2/wallet/synchronous", {
      subject: {
        asset,
        type: "address",
        hash: address,
      },
      type: "wallet_exposure",
      customer_reference: address,
    });
    
    return {
      riskScore: response.risk_score,
      exposures: response.exposures,
      clusters: response.entities,
    };
  }
  
  async getTransactionRisk(txHash: string, asset: string): Promise<EllipticRisk> {
    return this.post("/v2/txs/synchronous", {
      subject: { asset, type: "transaction", hash: txHash },
      type: "indirect_exposure",
    });
  }
}

Elliptic score ranges from 0 to 10 — normalization is needed for a unified risk logic if you use both providers.

Using Crystal Blockchain for Eastern Europe

Crystal is a European player, often preferred for CIS/EU projects due to pricing and support.

const crystalResponse = await axios.post(
  "https://aml.crystalblockchain.com/api/v1/risks/check",
  {
    address,
    currency: asset,
  },
  {
    headers: { "X-Auth-Apikey": CRYSTAL_API_KEY },
  }
);

How AML Screening Integration Works

The project process includes several stages:

  1. Compliance requirements analysis — study jurisdiction, operation types, required reports.
  2. Provider API connection — registration, key generation, webhook setup.
  3. Risk logic configuration — define thresholds for automatic blocking, manual review, and pass.
  4. Platform integration — embed AML calls into deposit/withdrawal flows.
  5. Historical data testing — run past transactions to calibrate thresholds.
  6. Production launch and monitoring — track false positives, adjust rules.

Why Use a Dual-Provider Strategy

For production: two providers reduce the risk of false negatives. Logic: BLOCK if at least one blocks, REVIEW if at least one flags.

Example dual-provider strategy:

async function dualProviderScreen(address: string, txHash: string): Promise<RiskDecision> {
  const [chainalysisResult, ellipticResult] = await Promise.allSettled([
    chainalysis.screenTransfer({ transferReference: txHash, ... }),
    elliptic.getWalletRisk(address, asset),
  ]);
  
  const c = chainalysisResult.status === "fulfilled" ? chainalysisResult.value : null;
  const e = ellipticResult.status === "fulfilled" ? ellipticResult.value : null;
  
  if (!c && !e) throw new Error("Both AML providers unavailable");
  
  const maxScore = Math.max(
    c?.riskScore ?? 0,
    e ? e.riskScore * 10 : 0,
  );
  
  if (maxScore >= 70 || c?.status === "BLOCKED") return { decision: "BLOCK", score: maxScore };
  if (maxScore >= 40) return { decision: "REVIEW", score: maxScore };
  return { decision: "ALLOW", score: maxScore };
}

A dual-provider system can reduce operational compliance costs by up to 30% by decreasing false positives.

What's Included in the Work

  • Integration documentation in Russian and English.
  • Client source code in TypeScript (compatible with Node.js and browser).
  • Dashboard setup for the compliance team (filtering, export, notifications).
  • Team training: how to interpret risk scores and respond to alerts.
  • Post-launch support: 2 weeks of monitoring and refinements.

On more than 20 projects, we've encountered all typical errors — from incorrect score normalization to timeouts under high load. We guarantee your platform will meet regulatory requirements without constant false blocks.

Order turnkey AML screening integration — we will evaluate your project within 1 day. Contact us via Telegram or email for a consultation and a preliminary commercial proposal.

Chainalysis API Documentation

Why does your project risk without blockchain compliance services?

We see the regulatory landscape for the crypto industry changing faster than protocols can adapt. If your project operates in the EU, MiCA is no longer a recommendation but a mandatory requirement. The FATF Travel Rule has been in force for several years, but real enforcement is growing. Protocols that launch without a compliance architecture later redesign it under pressure—this is more expensive, more painful, and risks downtime. Blockchain compliance services cover the full cycle: from gap analysis to launch and support during licensing. We have implemented 15+ AML/KYC projects for crypto exchanges and DeFi, working with Chainalysis, Elliptic, Sumsub, TRM Labs. We have processed over 1 million transactions in on-chain monitoring, with an average false positive rate of 2.3% for AML screening.

Why is the Travel Rule a technical, not a legal challenge?

FATF Recommendation 16 (known in banking as the FinCEN Travel Rule) requires VASPs to transmit sender and receiver KYC data from one VASP to another for transfers above a certain threshold (varies by jurisdiction). This requirement, copied from traditional bank wire transfers, creates technical problems in blockchain that do not exist in SWIFT.

The first problem is determining VASP-to-VASP. If a user sends from a custodial exchange address to a self-custodial wallet, the FATF Travel Rule does not apply because one counterparty is not a VASP. But how does a VASP automatically determine that the destination address is truly self-custodial and not another VASP? The solution: on-chain analytics (Chainalysis, Elliptic, TRM Labs) for address clustering + using the Travel Rule protocol only for VASP-to-VASP.

The second problem is interoperability between VASPs. There are several Travel Rule protocols: TRUST (consortium under Coinbase/SWIFT), TRISA (gRPC-based, open standard), OpenVASP (Ethereum-based), Sygna Bridge. They are not interoperable. Most major exchanges support several simultaneously. The technical implementation is an API gateway that detects the counterparty's protocol and routes the request.

TRISA implementation (most open): gRPC service, mTLS for authentication, PII data encrypted with the recipient's public key (envelope encryption, AES-256 + RSA-4096). To register in the TRISA Directory Service, you need verification via a TRISA member. The code is an open SDK in Go and Python.

Specific pain point: timing. Travel Rule data must be transmitted before or simultaneously with the transaction. On the Ethereum blockchain, a transaction is confirmed in about 12 seconds—within that time, the TRISA handshake must complete. If the counterparty does not respond, the transaction is blocked or delayed. The UI must explain this to the user, otherwise a flood of support tickets is guaranteed.

TRISA handshake implementation details

Example gRPC request for Travel Rule data transfer:

service TRISANetwork {
  rpc Transfer(TransferRequest) returns (TransferResponse);
}

message TransferRequest {
  string identity_payload = 1;  // encrypted PII packet
  string envelope_public_key = 2;
  string transaction_hash = 3;
}

The handshake takes 3-5 HTTP rounds, including verification of the counterparty's mTLS certificate via PKI Directory.

How to choose a KYC/AML provider for a crypto project?

KYC providers for cryptocurrencies fall into several tiers:

Tier 1 (enterprise, regulatory grade): Jumio, Onfido, Sumsub, Veriff. Support 200+ countries, video verification, liveliness checks, AML screening via Refinitiv/Dow Jones. Integration via REST API + webhooks. Sumsub is popular in European crypto projects—good SDK documentation for mobile apps.

Tier 2 (DeFi-native, privacy-focused): Fractal ID, Synaps, Persona. Less regulatory overhead, faster integration, but less global coverage for high-risk jurisdictions.

On-chain KYC via credentials: Quadrata Passport, Civic, PolygonID—user verifies once, gets an on-chain credential, protocols verify it without repeated verification. Privacy-preserving via ZK. Not mainstream yet, but we are laying the groundwork in the architecture.

Provider Tier On-chain credentials Average integration time Jurisdictions
Sumsub 1 no 3–4 weeks 220+
Fractal ID 2 yes (Ethereum) 2–3 weeks 80+
Quadrata 2 yes (zk-proof) 4–5 weeks global (non-custodial)

Architectural principle: KYC data is never stored on-chain. Personal data is stored with the provider or in your encrypted database; on-chain only a hash (commitment) or credential (if using VC/SBT approach). This ensures GDPR compliance: the right to erasure is achievable if data is off-chain.

Typical mistake: storing wallet-to-identity mapping in plaintext in PostgreSQL without row-level encryption. One SQL injection and the entire KYC database is compromised. Minimum: column encryption for PII fields (PGP or AES via pgcrypto), separate key management (AWS KMS, HashiCorp Vault), audit log for all PII access.

For AML screening, we use Chainalysis, Elliptic, or TRM Labs. Integration is asynchronous via webhook: results come in 1–5 seconds. Threshold-based blocking: HIGH risk — auto-block, MEDIUM — manual review. Hold period for suspicious transactions is 24–72 hours until manual review. Sanctions screening separately: OFAC SDN list updates several times a week; we use direct OFAC list integration (free) with custom address matching logic.

How do we implement MiCA support?

Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (EU 2023/1114) requires CASP (Crypto-Asset Service Provider) licensing in one EU state with passporting. Technical requirements affecting development:

White paper is mandatory for issuers of ART (Asset-Referenced Tokens) and EMT (E-Money Tokens)—not a marketing document but a legally binding prospectus with technical description, holder rights, and redemption mechanisms.

Custody requirements: client assets separate from operational assets. Technically: separate wallets/accounts per client (or omnibus with off-chain mapping + regular reconciliation), no possibility to use client funds for operational needs.

Transaction monitoring and reporting: CASPs must keep records of all transactions for at least 5 years and provide them to the regulator upon request.

Travel Rule in MiCA: the threshold for VASP-to-VASP transfers is zero (not the FATF threshold). Implementation requires a Travel Rule endpoint operating 24/7.

Organization type Key MiCA requirements Technical impact
ART/EMT issuer White paper, redemption mechanism, reserve audit Smart contract with redemption function, oracle for reserve proof
CASP (exchange, custodian) License, custody segregation, Travel Rule Separate wallets per client, TRISA/TRUST integration
DeFi protocol (no issuer) Currently out of MiCA scope (review pending) Monitor, prepare architecture

Compliance infrastructure implementation process

Compliance architecture is not added on top of an existing product without pain. The correct order: compliance requirements → data model → business logic → UI. If you already have a product without a compliance layer, we start with a gap analysis: what data is already collected, where the gaps are, what will require schema migration.

  1. Gap analysis — audit of current architecture and data flow (1–2 weeks).
  2. Design — selection of KYC provider, Travel Rule protocol, AML tool, data model.
  3. Integration — connecting KYC API, implementing AML screening in the pipeline, setting up Travel Rule gateway.
  4. Testing — end-to-end tests, simulating Travel Rule handshake, verifying sanctions screening.
  5. Deployment and monitoring — rollout with feature flags, setting up alerting for compliance service errors, audit trail.
  6. License support — preparing documentation for the regulator, assisting with inspections.

What does the blockchain compliance service include?

  • Compliance architecture documentation (data flow, ER diagrams, API specifications).
  • Integration of KYC/AML/Travel Rule APIs with your backend.
  • Setup of monitoring and alerting for compliance services.
  • Training your team on tools (Chainalysis, Sumsub, etc.).
  • Support during the licensing process (MiCA, FATF).

Timeline benchmarks

  • KYC/AML integration with Sumsub or Jumio — from 3 to 6 weeks.
  • Travel Rule (TRISA or Sygna) — from 6 to 10 weeks.
  • Full compliance infrastructure for CASP licensing — from 4 to 8 months.
  • On-chain compliance via VC/SBT with ZK (MiCA-ready) — from 5 to 9 months.

Scope is refined after gap analysis. To evaluate your project, contact us—we will conduct a free analysis of your current architecture and select the optimal set of tools. Get a consultation on compliance architecture for MiCA or Travel Rule. Our team has over 7 years of blockchain development experience and 15+ deployed compliance solutions. Request an audit of your protocol for compliance with current regulatory requirements.