Client and entity profile
Capture the client, persons acting for it, entity type, relationship purpose, and the information required by the firm's policy.
- Natural and legal persons
- Representatives
- Relationship purpose
FICA and KYC
FICA Workflow Software for South African Legal Practices
Support risk-based client due diligence, beneficial-ownership work, reviews, evidence, and exceptions while the accountable institution retains responsibility for its RMCP and regulatory decisions.
Client profiles Beneficial ownership Risk review Exception visibility
Compliance Workflow
Turn policy into visible, reviewable work.
FICA is not a once-off document upload. The firm's risk-based programme should govern onboarding and the continuing relationship.
Beneficial ownership
Record ownership and control work for legal persons, trusts, and partnerships with unresolved evidence kept visible.
- Ownership records
- Control relationships
- Verification status
Risk-based review
Apply the firm's approved risk methodology and distinguish standard, enhanced, and ongoing due-diligence work.
- Risk ratings
- Review dates
- Enhanced measures
Operational oversight
Monitor overdue reviews, awaiting-verification states, risk signals, decisions, and responsible people.
- Review queues
- Exceptions
- Audit evidence
CDD Lifecycle
Know the client, understand the relationship, keep it current.
The exact evidence and decision path should follow the firm's current RMCP and risk assessment.
Identify the client
Establish the client and relevant persons without onboarding anonymous or fictitious identities.
Verify and understand
Apply risk-based verification and understand ownership, control, purpose, and expected activity.
Decide and record
Approve, escalate, decline, or defer according to the RMCP and authorised decision model.
Monitor and review
Keep information current and respond to changed risk, activity, ownership, or sanctions exposure.
Responsibility Boundary
Software supports the RMCP; it does not own it.
The accountable institution's highest authority, compliance function, and authorised people remain responsible for the programme.
A generic checklist cannot replace the firm's documented, approved, implemented, and maintained risk-based programme.
A completed field or uploaded document does not prove that CDD is sufficient for the identified risk.
PEP and sanctions work depends on correct scope, current data, match handling, escalation, and ongoing monitoring.
Regulatory reporting and tipping-off risks require authorised procedures outside a general product claim.
FICA and KYC FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Questions about risk-based CDD, RMCP responsibility, beneficial ownership, screening, and ongoing review.
Does Lexuno make a law firm FICA compliant?
No. Lexuno can support a controlled workflow, but the accountable institution remains responsible for its risk assessment, RMCP, decisions, monitoring, records, reporting, and remediation.
Is FICA verification a once-off onboarding task?
No. The FIC framework includes ongoing due diligence and keeping information relevant to the relationship and its risk.
Can every client follow the same checklist?
A firm's RMCP should apply a risk-based approach. The nature and intensity of measures can differ according to the identified risk and legal requirements.
Does a screening match mean the person is sanctioned or a PEP?
Not automatically. Matches require identity resolution, authorised review, evidence, and action according to the firm's programme and current regulatory sources.
Does Lexuno file reports with the FIC?
No such production capability is claimed on this page. Regulatory reporting remains subject to the firm's authorised procedures and verified integrations.
Make compliance work visible without outsourcing responsibility.
Explore Lexuno's compliance workflow or discuss how it could reflect your firm's approved RMCP.