Application Guidance & Submission Checklist
This page is designed to prevent avoidable completeness failures. The strongest submissions are structured packs with a clear scope narrative, a funds-flow explanation, and an evidence index pointing to operational proof (not just policies).
Pack structure (recommended)
Assemble the submission as a single coherent package with an index. Avoid sending fragmented PDFs or multiple conflicting versions of documents.
Cover + scope matrix
What you do, what you do not do, and which MSB activities are requested.
Funds flow narrative
How money moves end-to-end, where it sits, and how safeguarding and reconciliation work.
Evidence index
A pointer list to policies, logs, dashboards, approvals, and case records.
Evidence beats wording
If you claim “ongoing monitoring,” show alert logs. If you claim “screening,” show alert disposition workflow. If you claim “reconciliation,” show sample output.
Submission checklist (core)
The checklist below is the baseline expected for most MSB applications. Additional items may be required depending on scope and corridor risk.
Signed by authorized officers; consistent names across all documents.
UBO details, corporate structure chart, directors/officers list, and control rationale.
Products, corridors, customer types, transaction volumes, and third-party dependencies.
Where funds sit, settlement steps, reconciliation process, and access controls.
Risk assessment, CDD/EDD, screening, monitoring rules, investigations workflow, reporting triggers.
Board approvals, roles/responsibilities, training plan, QA, escalation and issue management.
Audit logs, reporting outputs, monitoring evidence, and record retrieval readiness.
Appointment letter and statutory correspondence channel controls.
Invoice reference discipline and remittance proof for correct allocation.
Common rejection and delay causes
These issues create the highest likelihood of clarification cycles, deferrals, or refusal outcomes.
High-risk red flags
Scope drift across documents, unclear UBO control, unrealistic volumes, and AML “policy-only” submissions without evidence logs.
Completeness failures
Missing signatures, mismatched names, incomplete annexes, and absence of a single evidence index.
Next step
If you want the fastest outcome, build the file like a reviewer will read it: one narrative, one scope, one flow, one index, and evidence attached.