Three engagements, start to finish
What we do is easier to grasp from an engagement than from a service description. Below are three cases written out in full: the situation, what we found, how we approached it, what it produced and what it cost.
Example case — not an existing client. This case was written to show how we work. The situation is assembled from patterns we encounter at comparable institutions; the organisation, the figures and the outcomes are illustrative and do not trace back to any client of ZandKade Compliance. The amounts match our published rates.
We work in a field where a client relationship is not a shop window. As long as there is no client willing to be named, we publish no case studies — and we do not invent any either. What you read below are worked examples: assembled from patterns we encounter at comparable institutions, with the trade-offs and the figures that go with them. That gives you an honest picture of how we work without using anyone's file to do it.
All three describe institutions that typically arrive in the Netherlands from abroad: a payment institution, a crypto-asset service provider and a trust office. Two further cases — a civil-law notary practice and a supervisory information request from the BFT — are specific to the Dutch market and exist in Dutch only.
The cases
Payment institution: framework rebuilt after fast growth
From 900 to 9,000 corporate clients, still on the policy written for the licence application. Risk assessment rebuilt, monitoring recalibrated, the MLRO taken out of the operational reporting line.
CASP: a stalled MiCAR application unblocked
Six services applied for, thirty follow-up questions, and an AML framework that existed only on paper. Scope cut to four services and the file rebuilt from the ground up.
Trust office: 1,400 files, 620 touched
An acquired portfolio spread over three systems and no picture of its quality. A baseline on 120 files, then segmentation — and targeted remediation instead of redoing everything.
At a glance
| Case | Subject, supervisor and duration |
|---|---|
| Payment institution: framework rebuilt after fast growth | Wwft · DNB · 14 weeks |
| CASP: a stalled MiCAR application unblocked | MiCAR · AFM · 11 months |
| Trust office: 1,400 files, 620 touched | Wwft · DNB · 5 months |
What every case contains
- A facts panel. Type of institution, size, supervisor, trigger, duration, your own effort and the investment — with amounts matching our published rates.
- What we found. Not only the gaps but why they had arisen. That second part determines whether a fix keeps working.
- The approach in phases, including the choices that came with a trade-off.
- The outcome, with figures. Illustrative, but in the order of magnitude we see in practice.
- Lessons you can apply yourself, with or without us.
How we work
Three things recur in every case because they are fixed for us. We do not review work we set up ourselves — if we build the framework, the final review goes to a third party. We sell no software and receive no commission from vendors, so advice to replace a system never stems from an interest on our side. And we do not complete files retroactively: during a live supervisory process the honest answer is almost always the cheapest one. More on how we work.
Your situation not here? It probably resembles one of these three. In a free thirty-minute call we look at it with you and say plainly whether we can help. Book a call or ring +31 6 11 32 53 62.