An AI anti-bribery screening agent identifies which new or renewing vendors fall inside your screening rules, such as those dealing with public officials, customs or licences.
A new or renewing vendor enters onboarding or review
Agent gathers ownership, country, sector and intermediary roles
Agent compares the profile with the bribery risk criteria in policy
Agent drafts a note listing indicators and missing facts
Compliance officer weighs indicators against context
The decision and reasons are stored on the vendor record
It gathers declared ownership, intermediary roles and any gifts or payment arrangements named in the request, and matches them to your risk indicators.
It writes up the findings for the compliance reviewer, with the source of each flag, and records the decision once a person has made it.
Bribery risk sits in details that are easy to overlook: a sales agent, a facilitation fee, a government customer. Purchasing teams rarely see them in the same place.
The vendor named on the request may subcontract to an agent whose role only appears in the contract or the questionnaire.
Screening happens for the vendors someone remembers to refer, not for every vendor that matches the policy.
Ownership, contract terms and declarations are spread across forms, emails and the vendor file.
Teams argue over whether a case needs review because the rule is not applied the same way each time.
Auditors ask what was checked and when, and the answer is a memory.
Compare the vendor's country, sector, role and spend with your screening policy to decide whether review is needed.
Pull ownership, intermediary and public-official statements from the vendor's forms and the contract draft.
Mark payment structures, commission terms, or missing ownership detail that match your listed red flags.
Summarise what was found, where, and how it relates to the policy, with the source attached.
Log the reviewer's decision and any conditions, and set a date for rescreening.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Risk indicators | Reviewers rely on memory of what policy treats as a red flag | Each profile is compared with the written indicators every time |
| Third-party roles | Agents, resellers and consultants are spotted only if someone asks | Intermediary roles are identified from contracts and requests and marked |
| Evidence | Notes live in emails and vary in detail | A dated note records what was checked and what was missing |
| Review queue | Everything reaches compliance, or nothing does | Only profiles with indicators are routed with a reason |
| Re-screening | Existing vendors are rarely revisited | Changes in ownership, country or scope trigger a prompt to review |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor operates in a country policy marks higher risk | Adds a prompt for enhanced questions | Compliance officer decides what is needed |
| Vendor acts as an agent or intermediary to government | Escalates with the contract role highlighted | Compliance officer reviews before work starts |
| Commission or success fee appears in the draft contract | Flags the payment term for review | Legal and compliance review |
| Owner or director matches a flagged public official record | Pauses the case and routes the match as unconfirmed | Compliance officer confirms or dismisses |
| Vendor does not answer integrity questions | Records the non-response and reminds once | Procurement owner decides next step |
| Gifts or hospitality are mentioned in a request | Links the mention to the vendor file | Compliance officer reviews |
The agent notes the similarity but does not state a conclusion. Compliance confirms identity using independent facts before any action.
The agent compares later contract and payment requests with the original profile. It flags the change so compliance can re-screen.
When ownership details cannot be found, the agent lists what is missing instead of guessing. Compliance decides whether to accept, ask the vendor or decline.
The agent keeps the screening open and marks it pending. Compliance alone decides whether work may begin on a conditional basis.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Compliance writes the indicator list in plain terms so the agent applies the same criteria each time.
Start with vendors entering onboarding and read the notes against compliance judgement.
Include fee and agency clauses once screening notes prove reliable.
Add triggers for changes in scope, ownership or country, keeping compliance in charge.
It shows whether the policy is applied to every vendor it should reach. A low figure means vendors are being set up without the check.
Quick answers to what people ask most about anti-bribery screening.
Book a demoIt is the review of a vendor and its owners, agents and arrangements for corruption risk, carried out before the relationship starts and repeated when circumstances change.
No. It gathers evidence and marks indicators against your rules. A compliance officer judges and decides.
That is set by your policy, usually based on country, sector, contact with public officials and use of intermediaries.
Your policy sets this. The agent can track the dates and flag a vendor when its rescreening falls due.
Vendor onboarding is the process of taking a new supplier from first request to an approved, payable record.
→A supplier code of conduct sets the ethical, labour, environmental and compliance standards a vendor agrees to meet.
→Vendor security monitoring is the ongoing practice of watching suppliers for changes that affect their security posture, such as breaches, expired certificates, new subprocessors or negative advisories, after onboarding is complete.
→Supplier reactivation is the step of bringing a dormant or inactive supplier back into use after a period away, once its records and checks are confirmed to be current.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
