Finance and Economics Discussion Series (FEDS)
September 2025
Can LLMs Improve Sanctions Screening in the Financial System? Evidence from a Fuzzy Matching Assessment
Jeffrey S. Allen and Max S. S. Hatfield
Abstract:
We examined the performance of four families of large language models (LLMs) and a variety of common fuzzy matching algorithms in assessing the similarity of names and addresses in a sanctions screening context. On average, across a range of realistic matching thresholds, the LLMs in our study reduced sanctions screening false positives by 92 percent and increased detection rates by 11 percent relative to the best-performing fuzzy matching baseline. Smaller, less computationally intensive models from the same language model families performed comparably, which may support scaling. In terms of computing performance, the LLMs were, on average, over four orders of magnitude slower than the fuzzy methods. To help address this, we propose a model cascade that escalates higher uncertainty screening cases to LLMs, while relying on fuzzy and exact matching for easier cases. The cascade is nearly twice as fast and just as accurate as the pure LLM system. We show even stronger runtime gains and comparable screening accuracy by relying on the fastest language models within the cascade. In the near term, the economic cost of running LLMs, inference latency, and other frictions, including API limits, will likely necessitate using these types of tiered approaches for sanctions screening in high-velocity and high-throughput financial activities, such as payments. Sanctions screening in slower-moving processes, such as customer due diligence for account opening and lending, may be able to rely on LLMs more extensively.
Keywords: Large Language Models, Sanctions Screening, Model Cascading
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2025.092
PDF: Full Paper
Disclaimer: The economic research that is linked from this page represents the views of the authors and does not indicate concurrence either by other members of the Board's staff or by the Board of Governors. The economic research and their conclusions are often preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The Board values having a staff that conducts research on a wide range of economic topics and that explores a diverse array of perspectives on those topics. The resulting conversations in academia, the economic policy community, and the broader public are important to sharpening our collective thinking.