Blog
Solscan for Regulated Exchanges: AML Screening and Sanctions List Checking Using Public Addresses
A regulated cryptocurrency exchange in a US or EU jurisdiction faces a daily operational reality: customers deposit funds, move them across blockchains, and eventually request withdrawals. Compliance officers must verify that no transaction involves sanctioned entities, persons of interest, or proceeds of identifiable illicit activity. Traditional banking has decades of infrastructure for this—correspondent accounts, wire message standards, and centralized clearing houses that create audit trails. Blockchain transactions are immutable and publicly readable, yet that transparency only becomes useful if an exchange operator can search, correlate, and interpret on-chain data quickly enough to meet regulatory deadlines.
Solscan offers a direct approach: a read-only blockchain explorer for the Solana network that allows compliance teams to search transactions, trace wallet activity, monitor token movements, and build transaction histories without requiring login credentials or API keys. A compliance officer can enter a customer deposit address, examine its transaction history, identify incoming transfers, and cross-reference those sources against internal sanctions lists and known counterparty databases. The challenge is not whether Solscan makes data visible—it does—but rather how to integrate that visibility into a repeatable, defensible screening workflow that satisfies regulatory expectations and produces documentation suitable for examination by regulators or auditors.
Regulatory expectations for blockchain transaction monitoring
The CFTC and other US regulators expect exchanges to implement reasonable controls to prevent illicit activity, including screening of customer deposits and withdrawals against Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions lists. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) guidance and state money transmitter licenses impose similar obligations. The standard is not perfection—no exchange can guarantee that every transaction is legitimate—but rather that controls are documented, consistently applied, and subject to regular review and testing. For Solana-based transactions, this means maintaining records of screening decisions, the tools used, the timing of reviews, and evidence that suspicious activity was reported when appropriate.
The threshold question is therefore jurisdictional. If an exchange is registered as a money services business (MSB), holds a BitLicense in New York, operates under EU AML/CFT Directive requirements, or is subject to the Travel Rule, the exchange must be able to produce evidence of customer screening. Solscan cannot itself make the compliance determination—it is a data source, not a policy engine—but it can supply the raw material for that determination. A compliance officer using Solscan must establish clear procedures: which addresses trigger screening, what constitutes a “hit” against a sanctions list, how exceptions are documented, and how the process is logged for audit purposes.
The risk of not conducting adequate screening extends beyond fines. Regulators have imposed substantial penalties and, in some cases, criminal referrals for exchanges that knowingly or recklessly facilitated transactions involving sanctioned jurisdictions or individuals. The practical effect is that larger exchanges have integrated blockchain monitoring software from specialized vendors, while smaller or newer platforms may rely on manual review tools. Solscan sits in the middle: it is free and accessible without login, but it requires human judgment to interpret results and tie them to compliance policies.
Using Solscan for OFAC screening and sanctions list correlation
An OFAC screening workflow using Solscan begins with a customer deposit address. A compliance officer enters the address into Solscan and receives the complete transaction history: all inbound transfers, their timestamps, amounts, and source addresses. This information alone does not prove or disprove OFAC violations, but it narrows the search space. If a deposit address has received funds from a wallet that the exchange has already flagged or that appears in public threat intelligence, the officer can begin deeper investigation.
The next step is cross-referencing. Solscan allows the officer to click through to source addresses and examine their transaction history in turn. A wallet that has received from a known mixer service, a wallet that has moved funds to or from a jurisdiction-specific exchange, or a wallet with activity patterns consistent with sanctions evasion may warrant escalation. The public nature of Solana transactions means this work is forensic but not hidden: every transaction and address relationship is theoretically discoverable by the same methods, which is why documentation is critical.
The practical screening process might look like this: (1) A customer deposits 10 SOL to their exchange address. (2) The compliance officer notes the deposit address and enters it into Solscan. (3) Solscan shows that the 10 SOL came from an address controlled by a known crypto asset manager, which is already on the exchange’s approved counterparty list. (4) The officer documents this finding, marks the deposit as “screened—approved,” and closes the case. In contrast, if the source address is unknown or has characteristics that match risk signals in the exchange’s policy, the deposit is held pending further review, manual investigation, or escalation to senior compliance leadership.
A critical limitation of Solscan is that it provides only address-level data. It cannot automatically determine who controls an address. A sanctioned individual might operate a wallet using a publicly identifiable address, or they might obscure their identity through mixing, privacy tools, or multiple-hop transactions. Solscan can reveal the transactions, but not the intent. That is why compliance screening requires rules: if an address has transacted with a known OFAC-sanctioned entity, the exchange may choose to flag it automatically. If an address simply has multiple hops or mixing activity, the exchange may apply a different standard. The policy must be consistent and documented, so that auditors can understand the criteria used.
Tracing token and NFT flows for suspicious activity detection
Solscan also enables investigation of token transfers, which is particularly relevant for regulatory screening because attackers, sanctions evasion networks, and money laundering operations often move funds across multiple token types and liquidity pools to obscure the chain of custody. A customer deposit of a wrapped or synthetic asset, for example, can be traced backward to its origin: Did it come from a known staking provider? A decentralized exchange? A sanctioned wallet that has moved through multiple pools to change its appearance?
Solscan’s token analytics interface provides supply information, holder distribution, and recent transfer activity. For a compliance officer, this is useful for understanding whether a deposit is a standard token (established, widely held) or a newly created or obscure token (higher risk, more likely to be used for evasion or fraud). If a customer deposits a large amount of a token that has only been held by a handful of addresses, the exchange may apply stricter scrutiny. Conversely, if a token is held by thousands of addresses and traded on multiple exchanges, basic deposits are lower-risk unless other factors trigger suspicion.
NFT monitoring through Solscan serves a related purpose. Regulators are increasingly concerned that NFTs may be used to move value across borders while evading traditional AML controls. An NFT purchased for 1 SOL but resold within hours for 100 SOL may indicate value transfer or money laundering. Solscan displays NFT transaction history, collection-level data, and trading patterns, allowing a compliance officer to ask whether a customer’s NFT deposits or withdrawals align with normal trading behavior or suggest suspicious activity. Unlike traditional assets, NFTs have no official price or exchange rate, which makes them both flexible and opaque—exactly the properties that might attract illicit use.
Integrating Solscan data into compliance workflows and documentation
The technical ease of using Solscan belies the organizational work required for a compliance program. A single query is fast; a systematic screening process that covers all customers and is regularly audited requires integration into backend systems, staff training, and decision-making frameworks. Many exchanges pair Solscan with specialized blockchain monitoring software that automatically screens deposits against OFAC lists and flags transactions with high-risk characteristics. That software, in turn, relies on on-chain data that Solscan and similar explorers make readable.
The documentation requirement cannot be overstated. A regulatory examination typically includes a sample of customer deposits and withdrawals. Examiners want to see evidence that screening occurred, what tools were used, what results were obtained, and what action was taken. If an officer reviewed a deposit address through Solscan but did not document the findings, the regulator may cite the exchange for inadequate record-keeping even if the underlying screening was adequate. Best practice is to maintain records showing: the customer, the deposit or withdrawal address, the date of screening, the screening method (Solscan, in this case), the results (which addresses were queried, what was found), and the compliance decision (approved, held pending further review, rejected).
A compliance officer investigating a customer’s deposit through solscan should maintain screenshots or exported data showing the transaction history, the addresses involved, and the timestamps. If a deposit involves multiple hops or transfers before arriving at the exchange, the officer should document each step. If a source address appears in a public threat intelligence report or matches a pattern flagged by the exchange’s risk policy, that document should be retained. Over time, this creates an audit trail: whoever reviews the exchange’s compliance program can see how specific decisions were made and whether they were consistent with policy.
Limitations of public blockchain data and the need for multi-layered screening
Solscan is a powerful transparency tool, but it has structural limits that compliance officers must understand. First, it shows only on-chain activity. If a customer received funds via bank transfer and then purchased crypto off-exchange, Solscan will not reveal that connection. Second, it cannot identify wallet owners with certainty. An address is pseudonymous by design; correlation requires external intelligence, public identifiers (domain names, social media), or customer self-identification. Third, Solscan’s data is real-time but not immutable at the presentation layer—the explorer may experience delays or, theoretically, display errors that would be corrected upon verification of the blockchain directly.
The implication is that Solscan should be one layer of a multi-layered screening process. For customer onboarding, most exchanges require identity verification (Know Your Customer, or KYC), which establishes a link between a person and their deposit address. For transaction monitoring, Solscan provides the blockchain data; specialized vendors may provide the OFAC correlation and risk scoring; and internal policies determine the decision. For suspicious activity reporting (SAR), the exchange documents the investigation and files a report with FinCEN if a transaction appears to involve money laundering or sanctions evasion.
The Solana protocol documentation clarifies the technical properties of transactions—cryptographic signatures, fee structures, and confirmation mechanisms—which affect how an officer should interpret Solscan results. A transaction shown as “confirmed” on Solscan has achieved sufficient consensus to be considered final; a transaction shown as “pending” or “failed” has different implications for screening. Understanding these distinctions helps an officer avoid false positives or misinterpretation of transaction status.
Validator and network activity monitoring for operational risk
Beyond customer screening, compliance and operations teams can use Solscan to monitor the Solscan network itself. If the Solana network experiences validator failures, slot skipping, or unusual activity patterns, Solscan’s validator dashboard provides real-time visibility. This is less directly a compliance concern than customer screening, but it affects operational risk: if network activity is unusual, deposits and withdrawals may be delayed or fail, which creates customer service issues and can trigger regulatory questions about service availability.
Similarly, if a large exchange is a customer on another exchange, monitoring that upstream exchange’s validator activity and transaction capacity can inform decisions about when to route customer withdrawals and how to manage liquidity. Solscan provides this data through its block-level analytics and network status pages. The data itself is not a compliance tool, but it is part of the ecosystem that compliance and risk teams monitor to ensure the exchange can meet customer demand and regulatory expectations for transaction settlement and record-keeping.
Best practices for compliance officers using blockchain explorers
Effective use of Solscan for compliance requires several operational disciplines. First, establish clear screening criteria: what triggers a manual review? Does the exchange screen all deposits, or only deposits above a threshold? Does it screen withdrawals as well? Are certain customers or counterparties exempt or subject to enhanced screening? These policies should be documented and consistently applied. Second, maintain an audit log: every screening query should be recorded with the date, user, address queried, and findings. This log is your defense in a regulatory examination; it shows that screening was systematic and deliberate. Third, train staff on Solscan’s interface and limitations. An officer who understands that an address can have multiple source addresses, that tokens can be bridged or wrapped, and that transaction history can be long will ask better questions and make better screening decisions.
Fourth, establish escalation procedures. If screening reveals suspicious activity, who makes the decision to flag or reject a deposit? Is there a review process for borderline cases? If suspicious activity is identified, when is it reported to FinCEN? Fifth, conduct regular testing and review. Once per quarter, or as risk factors change, review a sample of screening decisions to ensure they are consistent with policy and with changes in the threat landscape. If new threat intelligence emerges about a particular jurisdiction, wallet mixer, or OFAC designee, update your screening criteria and retroactively review recent deposits if warranted. Sixth, integrate Solscan with customer records: when a customer is onboarded, record their primary deposit address. When reviewing that customer’s activity, link the address to the customer’s identity and KYC profile. This creates the audit trail that connects blockchain activity to a real person and to your compliance policy.
Regulatory examination and documentation standards
Regulators conducting examinations of cryptocurrency exchanges have become increasingly sophisticated in their approach to blockchain data. They expect compliance programs to go beyond a simple check mark and instead demonstrate a consistent, documented, and evolving approach to risk. When an examiner arrives, they will ask to see evidence of transaction monitoring, records of screening decisions, and documentation of suspicious activity reporting. Solscan queries alone are not sufficient—the exchange must show that it has correlated Solscan data with customer information, OFAC lists, and internal policies to reach a documented conclusion.
The Federal Reserve and other banking regulators have issued guidance on digital asset risk management, including expectations for transaction monitoring. While not all cryptocurrency exchanges are bank-regulated, the standards provide a useful benchmark: screening should be systematic, documented, and subject to independent review. Examiners also scrutinize the completeness of screening: if an exchange claims to screen all deposits but provides a sample showing gaps, that is a finding. If an exchange screens high-risk tokens but misses deposits of low-risk tokens, that may also be questioned. The safest approach is comprehensive screening combined with documented risk-based adjustments (e.g., enhanced screening for high-risk jurisdictions, simplified screening for established counterparties).
Frequently asked questions
Can I use Solscan alone to satisfy OFAC screening requirements?
Solscan provides on-chain data that can support OFAC screening, but it should be part of a multi-layered approach. You must integrate Solscan queries with customer identity information (KYC), OFAC list checks, your internal risk policies, and documented decision-making. Solscan cannot determine wallet ownership or intent; that requires human judgment and correlation with external data. Regulators expect systematic documentation of screening decisions, not just evidence that a tool was used.
What information should I document when screening a deposit address through Solscan?
Record the customer name, deposit address, date of screening, the source addresses identified by Solscan, any risk factors (mixing, sanctioned jurisdiction, unknown counterparty), the screening tool used, and your compliance decision (approved, rejected, held pending further review). If you identify suspicious activity, document the basis for that determination and whether it was reported to FinCEN. This documentation is required for regulatory examination and internal audit.
Does Solscan show who owns a wallet address?
No. Solscan shows transaction history and balances, but wallet addresses are pseudonymous. Determining ownership requires external intelligence: cross-referencing with public information (ENS names, domain registrations), customer disclosure, or threat intelligence reports. Solscan’s value for compliance is showing the transaction relationships and activity patterns; your compliance team must layer that data with identity information to reach a screening decision.
How does blockchain transparency affect AML screening differently than traditional banking?
Blockchain transactions are publicly visible and immutable, which makes transaction tracing and verification easier in some ways but creates new challenges. Adversaries can operate pseudonymous addresses, use mixing services, and bridge assets across chains—all visible on-chain but potentially obfuscating intent or beneficial ownership. Solscan reveals these patterns, but unlike traditional banking records, blockchain data requires interpretation. A traditional bank AML officer might rely on wire message formats and correspondent relationships; a blockchain AML officer must understand token standards, liquidity pools, and on-chain routing to extract the same insights.
