1 | third party due diligence | | | | | | | 3 | 0.39% |
2 | more detecting also indirect | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
3 | evasion with deep expertise | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
4 | potential sanctions evasion with | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
5 | any potential sanctions evasion | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
6 | in identifying violations our | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
7 | detailed information on the | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
8 | identifying violations our aidriven | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
9 | violations our aidriven solutions | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
10 | our aidriven solutions provide | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
11 | aidriven solutions provide detailed | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
12 | insights into complex commercial | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
13 | into complex commercial transactions | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
14 | complex commercial transactions bill | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
15 | commercial transactions bill of | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
16 | transactions bill of lading | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
17 | the client needed to | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
18 | sanctions evasion with deep | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
19 | also indirect sanctions evasion | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
20 | triangulations and satellite countries | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
21 | indirect sanctions evasion through | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
22 | detecting also indirect sanctions | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
23 | shipments and more detecting | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
24 | and more detecting also | | | | | | | 2 | 0.26% |
25 | multiple parties they needed | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
26 | in a complex crossborder | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
27 | client in a complex | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
28 | a client in a | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
29 | case involving multiple parties | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
30 | parties they needed to | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
31 | they needed to collect | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
32 | information on the opposing | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
33 | involving multiple parties they | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
34 | on the opposing company | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
35 | litigation case involving multiple | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
36 | law firm was representing | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
37 | representing a client in | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
38 | was representing a client | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
39 | firm was representing a | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |
40 | opposing company its executives | | | | | | | 1 | 0.13% |