SCR-CONSOLE-060 · RQI decision surface
Accept or return one due-diligence case
The whole file in one place: what was collected, what screening returned, who ultimately owns the company, what tier it was rated at, who collected it and who concurred. Read it, then decide it in your own name.
Restricted — a separate access list. Acceptance of a due-diligence case is reserved to a Registered Qualified Individual, is not delegable, and no configuration overrides it. Everything here is internal: nothing on this screen reaches a client, and nothing on it may be repeated to one.
Viewing as
Known-date view
As at 18 August 2026 at 9:41 am Singapore time
The case
What is being decided, on whom, and under which policy.
- Case reference
- kyc_9b31
- Case type
- Trigger review — a beneficial owner changed
- State
- AWAITING RQI
- Subject company
- Tanjong Rhu Marine Services Pte. Ltd.
- UEN
- 201744903D
- Registered office — public ACRA record
- 17 Kallang Junction, #04-08 Vantage Point, Singapore 339263
- Opened
- 22 June 2026
- Collected by
- Devika Rajan
- Policy in force
- IPPC 2026.2 · EWRA 2026.1
Risk rating
The tier a named person set, the model's advice, and why they differ where they do.
- Set by
- Arun Balakrishnan · 13 August 2026
- Next review due
- 14 August 2027
A new 30% beneficial owner resident in a higher-risk jurisdiction, introduced through a two-layer holding structure.
- A new beneficial owner resident in a jurisdiction on the firm's higher-risk list
- A two-layer holding structure between the client and the beneficial owner
- An existing client with a four-year filing history and no adverse findings
- No cash-intensive activity and no bearer instruments in the structure
The people on the case
Names are shown. Identifiers, dates of birth and addresses are not, until you ask.
This is personal data, so it is hidden until you ask for it. Every reveal is recorded — your name, the time, and which value you looked at.
Loh Wei Sheng
Director and existing shareholder
Singapore citizen · resident in Singapore
- NRIC number
•••••••••
- Date of birth
•• ••••• ••••
- Residential address
••• ••• ••••••• •••••, #••-•••, ••••••••• ••••••
How they were verified
Singpass Myinfo — electronic verification
Verified · name, identifier and date of birth matched · 24 June 2026
Screening
- Name match on a sanctions list — dispositioned FALSE_POSITIVE (different date of birth and nationality), 13 August 2026, Arun Balakrishnan
- Adverse-media match — dispositioned FALSE_POSITIVE (different person, different industry), 13 August 2026, Arun Balakrishnan
Amrita Deshmukh
New beneficial owner — 30% effective interest
Resident in a jurisdiction on the firm's higher-risk list (EWRA 2026.1, list version 3)
- Passport number
••••••••
- Date of birth
• ••••••••• ••••
- Residential address
••••••••• •••, ••• ••••••• ••••••••, •••• ••••••••, •• ••••
How they were verified
Certified copy of passport, checked against the EDD video call (INV-043 record)
Verified · document and liveness both checked · 15 August 2026
Screening
- Politically-exposed-person screening — dispositioned NO_MATCH, 13 August 2026, Arun Balakrishnan
- Sanctions screening — dispositioned NO_MATCH, 13 August 2026, Arun Balakrishnan
Who ultimately owns it
The look-through, layer by layer, and why the register of members names somebody else.
Layer 1 — the client
Tanjong Rhu Marine Holdings Pte. Ltd.
70% of the ordinary shares
Existing member. Unchanged by this trigger.
Layer 1 — the client
Straits Rhu Holdings Ltd (incorporated outside Singapore)
30% of the ordinary shares
The member the register of members names. It is a company, so it is not the beneficial owner.
Layer 2 — through the holder
Amrita Deshmukh
100% of Straits Rhu Holdings Ltd · 30% effective interest
The beneficial owner the determination arrives at, by looking through the corporate member.
The register of members and the beneficial-ownership determination do not name the same person, and that is expected here rather than an error: the register records the legal member (Straits Rhu Holdings Ltd) and the determination looks through it to the individual who ultimately controls the 30%. The divergence is explained on the case and the register of controllers is being updated to match.
Enhanced due diligence
Each trigger, each measure, and the evidence that closed it.
Establish the ownership chain through the corporate member
Closed by: Certified register of members and share certificates for Straits Rhu Holdings Ltd, received 12 August 2026
Corroborate the source of wealth of the new beneficial owner
Closed by: Audited accounts for two financial years and a bank reference, received 14 August 2026
Hold an enhanced-due-diligence call with the beneficial owner
Closed by: Video call held 15 August 2026, conducted by the Compliance Officer, liveness confirmed
The video call — held 15 August 2026, 4.00pm Singapore time, conducted by Arun Balakrishnan. Liveness confirmed, passport shown, attestation recorded. The recording itself is restricted and is not playable from this screen.
Source of funds and source of wealth
Required on a HIGH case before anyone may concur. Figures are personal data and stay hidden until you ask.
- Source of funds — stated
- Retained earnings of the beneficial owner’s operating business, held with a licensed bank.
S$•,•••,•••.••
- Source of wealth — corroborated
- Audited accounts for two financial years and a bank reference, both on the case file.
S$••,•••,•••.••
The Compliance Officer's concurrence
A HIGH case is not approvable without it, and nobody may concur with their own decision.
- Concurred by
- Arun Balakrishnan
- Recorded
- 14 August 2026
- Bound to the rating of
- 13 August 2026
The person deciding this case is Serene Ho Kai Xin, and the person who concurred is Arun Balakrishnan. Those must be two people, and the record shows that they are.
Every gate, and what would close it
Each one is checked again when the command runs. The screen and the server agree, or the command wins.
All 9 gates are cleared on this case, so acceptance is available to you.
- Cleared
Screening is current and every hit is dispositioned
Run 13 August 2026, 85 days of freshness left against a 90-day window. 4 dispositioned, 0 open.
- Cleared
Every enhanced-due-diligence measure is closed with evidence
3 measures closed, 0 outstanding.
- Cleared
Beneficial ownership is determined and the divergence explained
The chain is established through the corporate member and the difference from the register of members is written down.
- Cleared
The video call was held and cannot be substituted
Held 15 August 2026, 4.00pm, conducted by the Compliance Officer. Liveness confirmed, passport shown, attestation recorded. INV-043 allows no document, vendor check or recording to stand in for it.
- Cleared
Source of funds and source of wealth are recorded and corroborated
Required on a HIGH case before the Compliance Officer may concur. Both recorded, both corroborated by documents on the case.
- Cleared
The Compliance Officer has concurred, and is not the approver
Concurrence recorded 14 August 2026 by Arun Balakrishnan, bound to the current rating. A HIGH case cannot be approved without it, and nobody may concur with their own decision.
- Cleared
The effective rating is not PROHIBITED
Rated HIGH by a named person. A PROHIBITED rating cannot be approved under any configuration.
- Cleared
The whole decision set resolved
Auto-clear eligibility, verification per subject, screening and dispositions, the ownership determination, the rating with its factors and model version, the EDD triggers with their closing evidence, the pack hash and the submitting staff member — all resolved for this decision.
- Cleared
No compliance hold is on this case
A hold placed by the Compliance Officer would appear here in neutral wording and would close acceptance. Its basis is not shown on this screen and is not available to the Registered Qualified Individual.
The decision
Returning the case is one control, available from the first second, and it needs a reason and a list of what is missing. Accepting is at the far end, opens only once every item above has been read and acknowledged, and is typed out by hand.
A return with no date and no list is not something the case owner can act on. Both are required before the case goes back.
Case — decision requiredkyc_9b31
Customer due diligence — Tanjong Rhu Marine Services Pte. Ltd.
A trigger review opened on 22 June 2026 because a beneficial owner changed. Rated HIGH by a named person, concurred by the Compliance Officer, and now yours to accept or return.
- Case
- kyc_9b31
- Company
- Tanjong Rhu Marine Services Pte. Ltd.
- Risk tier
- HIGH
- Next review due
- 14 August 2027
- Pack hash
- sha256:7f41b0c9e2a84d16
- Submitted by
- Devika Rajan
Internal review — not shown to the client
Risk tier HIGH, set by Arun Balakrishnan on 13 August 2026; concurrence recorded by Arun Balakrishnan on 14 August 2026.
No compliance hold is on this case. Were one placed, it would read here in neutral wording only: its basis is not shown to the person deciding, and no part of this block — the tier, the triggers, the screening or the existence of the case — is ever rendered on a client surface.
Available at any point, with a reason. Nothing is lodged and the item goes back to the person who prepared it.
To approve — four steps
Read the evidence
Open each item, then mark it read. Approval stays closed until every required item is marked.
- Auto-clear eligibility, with every failed condition
Why this case could not clear itself and had to reach you.
- Identity verification, per subject
Method and result for each person on the case.
- Screening result and disposition, per subject
Run 13 August 2026 · 85 days of freshness left.
- Beneficial-ownership determination and the divergence note
Who ultimately owns the 30%, and why the register says otherwise.
- Risk rating, its factors and the model version
HIGH · model CustomerRiskModel 2026.2 · set by a named person.
- Enhanced-due-diligence triggers and the evidence closing each measure
HIGH_RISK_JURISDICTION, COMPLEX_STRUCTURE
- The Compliance Officer's concurrence
Required on a HIGH case, and never by the person deciding.
- The compiled due-diligence pack and who submitted it
Pack hash sha256:7f41b0c9e2a84d16.
Confirm it is you Not yet
An approval is attributed to you personally, so it is asked for again here even though you are already signed in.
Affirm the attestation Not yet
This is the sentence recorded against your name. Read it as written.
Type the reference to confirm Not yet
Approving cannot be undone from here. Type kyc_9b31 exactly, by hand.
Approval is closed until the steps above are done
Outstanding: the evidence has not all been acknowledged; you have not confirmed it is you; the attestation has not been affirmed; the reference has not been typed out.
Sending it back is quick and reversible. Approving is neither — which is why the two are not offered as a pair.
Reject — decline the relationship
The third outcome. Not wired in this mockup, and deliberately not faked.
Rejecting a case stops onboarding, closes the case as REJECTED and composes the client’s decline in the approved wording set — which says that we are unable to proceed and gives no reason beyond that. Nothing about the rating, the screening or the assessment behind it is ever said to the client, and the suspicion assessment that may follow is the Compliance Officer’s, recorded away from this screen and never shown on it.
It is not offered as a control here because the shared decision frame carries exactly one irreversible outcome and renders it as an approval — the word “Approved”, a tick and a verdigris ground. Recording a decline through that path would print the wrong word over the most consequential act on this screen, and building a second gated control beside it would be a softer route to the same decision. The frame needs a refusal outcome of its own; that has been reported rather than worked around.
Also yours today — not yet decidable
The second case in the RQI queue. It is shown here as a reading, not as a decision: its gates are open.
Selegie Craft Coffee Pte. Ltd.
entity onboarding · awaiting video call · risk tier HIGH
- Not cleared
1 screening hit is still open
ERR_HIT_UNDISPOSITIONED
- Not cleared
2 enhanced-due-diligence measures are outstanding
ERR_EDD_INCOMPLETE
- Not cleared
The video call has not been held — remote onboarding, no substitute permitted (INV-043)
ERR_VIDEO_CALL_MISSING
- Not cleared
No Compliance Officer concurrence is bound to the current rating
ERR_HIGH_RISK_CONCURRENCE_MISSING
Nothing about that case can be accepted from here while those stand, and no flag anywhere in this product bypasses the video call.