When conducting Client Due Diligence (CDD) through Legl Engage, a “Consider” result in one or more sections means certain checks could not be fully verified and need your review. This does not mean the client is fraudulent. Assess the findings using your firm’s risk-based approach.
Quick summary
“Consider” = needs review. Something couldn’t be conclusively verified.
Check context (typos, recent moves, image quality, data availability).
Use Legl Assist to summarise risk signals and speed up review.
Document your decision (override notes, comments) and escalate if required.
Legl Assist: AI summary & analysis
Legl’s built-in generative AI can summarise CDD reports and highlight risks.
Legl Assist focuses on:
KYC & AML: Flags areas with KYC/AML relevance.
PEPs & Sanctions: Groups and explains hits, with links to details.
Financial: Surfaces notable financial signals.
How to view: In the CDD report, click View summary.
What are the different types of consider results?
Below is a summary of each of the four checks being completed and what could cause a "Consider" result, to help you make a decision on what extra due diligence may be required, if any. Law firms should have their own review and escalation process for their clients due diligence results as we are unable to provide legal advice.
You can also watch this video explainer on how to review the due diligence results.
Jump to section:
Identity Document Validation
Why you may see “Consider”
Poor image quality (blurry, glare, damaged).
Unsupported/invalid docs (expired IDs, temporary passports, non-Roman characters).
Mismatch/errors: Client-entered data differs from ID (name variants, DoB).
Compromised document signals: Flagged on police databases or suspected non-genuine.
Data validation errors: Missing/incorrect formats (e.g., DoB).
Conflicting documents: Multiple uploaded IDs with inconsistent details.
Abnormal document features: White patches, mismatched fonts, visible edits, tampering indicators.
Recommended next steps
Follow your firm’s ID verification procedures.
If risk is low, you may override with rationale or review in alignment with firms internal process (e.g., minor typo).
Ask the client to resubmit a clearer or different ID (front/back if relevant).
If issues persist, schedule a live video verification.
Document actions/decisions in the report comments.
Note: Validation results are final for the submitted files - request a new upload if quality/formatting is the issue.
Remind clients to submit via the ID verification flow so evidence lands in the right section of the report.
Detailed Discussion on Abnormal Document Features
'Abnormal Document Features' is an outcome during report validation that flags potential quality issues or anomalies in documents. These can include:
Detection Process: Identifies anomalies such as white patches, blurry edges, or mismatched fonts, often indicating tampering or low image quality.
Fraud Assessment: Flags inconsistencies without conclusively determining fraud, ensuring detailed review before making decisions.
If flagged, next steps may include requesting clients to:
Submit higher-quality document scans.
Address flagged issues through re-upload or clarification.
Identity Validation
Legl checks identity using:
Credit agency data
Electoral roll data
Telephone databases
Mortality lists
Minimum Criteria for a "Clear" Result:
Not found on mortality lists AND
Match on name and date of birth AND
One or more matches on name and current address (across different sources)
Common Causes of "Consider":
Recently changed address
Typos in name or address
International address with limited data availability
You may choose to:
Accept ID document as proof of identity
Request an additional proof of address
"Unidentified results found" Result
If you receive a Consider result that reads "unidentified results found", this means that the technology has not been able to confirm that individual's data (e.g. DOB, name or address) against any of the databases or records used to perform the Identity Validation check.
This can be a common result for international addresses (due to limited datasets outside of the UK), but can also occur for some UK individuals (e.g. they recently moved address, or their information has simply not been found to be listed on the public data sources checked). As always, it is up to the firms risk based approach whether they are happy with the other documents provided in the report as a whole, or whether they prefer to ask for additional proof of identity documentation.
"N/A" Result
If Appendix 2 shows N/A, it's likely because the client’s address is outside the UK.
Legl can still verify international government-issued photo IDs.
However, address verification is limited due to data availability.
Clients will be asked to upload a proof of address, which you can manually assess.
Use the comments section to document any manual verification or override justification.
Biometrics
Why you may see “Consider”
Image integrity: Blurry scans/screenshots; ID photo not suitable for comparison.
Face detection errors: No face found, too many faces, or poor framing.
No liveness: Required movements not followed.
Source integrity: Signs of digital tampering, emulator, fake webcam.
Face comparison: Face on ID doesn’t match selfie/video.
Visual authenticity / spoofing: Indicators of a non-real face (paper/screen/screenshot).
Recommended next steps
Ask the client to redo the biometric step with clear instructions.
If repeat issues, consider live video verification.
Document your review and outcome in the report.
Financial Checks
The report could be flagged "Consider" for one of the below reasons:
County court judgement: The individual has a court order registered against them for failure to repay a debt. This will detail the date of the order and the amount owed.
Debt collection check: The individual has had credit check(s) made against them by someone from a debt collection agency in the last 24 months.
No matching record: There was no record of the individual found in the credit agency lists.
Example next steps: Depending on your internal process, the type of service you are providing, and the risk profile defined within your firm, you may decide to follow some extra due diligence steps.
In the instance of "no matching record", you may request additional documents from the client to carry out further credit verification checks.
"N/A" Result: The CDD report will show Appendix 4: N/A when the client's address is outside of the United Kingdom. This is due to County Court Judgement information only being available for individuals in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Based on your agreed-upon internal process, you may choose to ask individuals with an address outside of the UK for additional documents to satisfy your Financial Check requirements.
PEPs and Sanctions (Watchlist Screening)
Why you may see “Consider”
Potential matches on:
Government/International Sanctions Lists
Proprietary PEP datasets (incl. family/close associates)
Regional/national/international Law-enforcement & Regulatory lists (e.g., Interpol, AML, anti-terrorism)
Proprietary Adverse Media datasets
Relatives and Close Associates (RCAs) – individuals with a close personal or professional relationship to a PEP (e.g., family members, business partners), who may present similar financial crime risks
Legl orders potential matches by relevance. Priority:
Sanctions over other AML types
Exact name over inexact name
DoB match over no DoB
Country match over mismatch/unknown
Strong matches & probable false matches
Results are grouped to help triage:
Strong matches – likely your client based on exact or valid name matching.
Examples:
Perfect match: You search “Sarah Johnson” → We find “Sarah Johnson”
Valid word order: You search “Sarah Johnson” → We find “Johnson Sarah”
Missing middle name but valid: You search “Michael David Brown” → We find “Michael Brown”
These require careful review. Prioritise checking DoB, location, and other identifiers.
Probable false matches – similar names but likely different people (different first name or extra names). Still apply judgment; data quality varies across sources.
🟠 Note: Due to variance in source data, the most relevant result might not always be first. Apply your risk-based approach.
What to do with false positives
Enter middle names where possible to improve search accuracy and reduce false positives.
Follow linked sources to qualify/disqualify a match.
Pay close attention to country, images, and timelines in sources.
For common names, compare DoB and geography to rule out unrelated individuals.
Documenting your review
Once you have made your assessment of each result you can mark each result with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to confirm or dismiss it as a match for your client. You can also add individual comments on each result, to evidence the reason for your decision.
⬤ Note: Results marked with a ‘No’ will be removed from ongoing monitoring, reducing unnecessary monitoring alerts in the future.
Confirming or dismissing matches and documenting reason for decision:
The Watchlist review section provides you with a table listing all the potential matches for your client. Including their name, DOB and the data source they were found on (PEP, Sanction, etc).
If you are immediately able to determine a specific result is not your client, you can mark it with a ‘No’ in the left hand column.
If you require more information to make your assessment, or would like to add a comment documenting the reason for your decision, you can click on a given result to open a more detailed view.
This detailed view has more information about the potential matching individual, as well as the details of the Watchlists they have appeared on. At the bottom of the page you have the ability to mark the result with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and add a comment.
All decisions and comments made will be added to the PDF report, once the entire report has been marked as ‘reviewed’.
If you need to escalate a specific result(s) you can add any comments and make any initial decisions, before escalating it to a member of your team following the steps below. All comments and decisions will be preserved for them to review.
If helpful, you can also view our how-to video walking through the Watchlist review process.
Escalating a "Consider" result
In most instances, "Consider" flags simply require you to review the report carefully, and potentially verify the data with your client. If your firm requires you to ask a colleague to review the report instead, you can assign a new Reviewer to the engage request from the 'review' window.
Click "change" and select the new reviewer from the drop down menu.
In some instances, you may need your client to complete the check again - if this is the case, simply click "Create Engage Request" and generate a new link for your client.