Counterparty Screening — Pass the Result, Not the Reasons
Share counterparty credit and sanctions decisions as ZK proofs of the result alone — never the reasons, scores, or query history. This structurally removes both the leakage risk of sharing the basis and the waste of every firm re-screening the same party.
For credit and screening teams
End the choice between shipping the reasons and scores — moving leakage risk — and making the other side re-screen the same party, by sharing only the decision, proven.
-
Credit / compliance leads at banks, FinTechs, and crypto exchanges
-
Procurement, purchasing, and risk teams at manufacturers, trading firms, and critical-infrastructure operators running supplier vetting
-
Legal and compliance functions that need to share sanctions / credit decisions across the group and with partners
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Nothing changes on the floor. Everything changes for the receiver.
① Your team just saves, as always.
- The usual step
- Fill in the record and save
- On save
- A proof is attached (API, behind the scenes)
- The document itself
- never sent
② They just open a link.
- Proven fact
- meets the criteria / flagged
- the reasoning, score and lookup history
- not shown
- Login / keys
- not needed
- The document stays private — the record itself is never sent or disclosed.
- Independent verification — the receiver just opens a link. No account, no keys.
- Edits are detected — even a one-character edit fails verification.
Lemma lets the issuer that ran the decision (a bank, a compliance team, a credit / sanctions data provider) emit the decision as a predicate — "not on the sanctions list", "credit score above threshold", "not resident in a restricted jurisdiction" — as an independent attribute proof. The underlying data (transaction history, credit information, the full list, query history) stays under the issuer; what travels to the verifier is only the ZK proof of the result.
The receiving side (counterparty, group company, auditor, AI agent) verifies "does it meet the bar" independently, without ever touching the underlying data. When, by whom, and that the decision was issued tamper-free is fixed via a provenance anchor (docHash) and stays reconstructable years later. The duplicate-screening work across firms and the leakage / defamation risk of shipping the basis come off the same design at once.
Where this proof-issuance layer drops into your existing credit / sanctions data providers, in-house decision pipelines, or compliance workflows is what the first conversation maps out.
Why the usual methods fall short.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-evidence — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-evident | What happens |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access control / permissions | △ | ✗ | ✗ | “Someone inside could have edited it” remains possible |
| Masking / redacted copies | △ | ✗ | ✗ | Redaction work grows; the original is still unproven |
| Encrypt and store / send | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | To verify, the receiver needs it disclosed after all |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | The receiver just opens a link |
How it works — and how to start.
We help design disclosure scope and retention, run the PoC, and support production.
Start with a 30-minute call.
To start, tell us where in your current screening the "untrusted because un-showable" risk concentrates — in the first 30 minutes. No disclosure of sensitive data is required.
Find the case that matches your industry and problem
Browse all 36 use cases →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.