OFAC name-match scores: what to check before calling a result a match

A high score in OFAC’s Sanctions List Search tells you that names resemble each other. It does not give the probability that the subject of your research is the listed person or organization. Read the complete entry, compare the identifying details, and preserve unresolved differences before handing the finding to whoever is responsible for a compliance decision.

The score answers a narrow question

OFAC is the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Its explanation of the search score describes name similarity based on spelling and sound. A score of 100 indicates an exact name match; a lower result is a possible match. Neither statement means that a search has established the identity of your subject.

For example, two unrelated organizations can share a name. A correct name can also appear in a document that belongs to the wrong organization. The number belongs to the comparison performed by the search tool, not to the reliability of every fact you have collected.

There is another useful boundary: only the name field uses fuzzy matching. Do not assume that an identification-number search tolerates spelling or punctuation differences in the same way. Preserve the original identifier, its issuing authority and the form actually searched.

Read the row, then the record behind it

Start at the official Sanctions List Service rather than treating a third-party screenshot as a complete source. Record which list produced the result and when you viewed it. OFAC maintains the SDN list and separate non-SDN lists; the label matters.

Open the full entry. OFAC’s match-assessment guidance calls for comparing available details, which can include entity type, aliases, identification numbers, dates and addresses. An address alone may be shared by several businesses. Missing information is a gap to resolve, not a match or a contradiction.

A practical way to keep this review readable is to use three columns: what the list says, what an independent source says about the subject, and what remains unresolved. Attach a source to each observation. Do not combine a registration number from one namesake with an address from another.

A fictional review with one decisive missing field

Invented teaching example: “Cedar Lantern Components” and every detail below are fictional. This is not a real OFAC entry, a live search or an allegation. No search score has been simulated.

The brochure does not justify writing “the company is on the list.” It also does not justify “the company is clear.” The next useful task is to establish which registered entity issued the brochure. If a registry document later supplies a different number, compare the jurisdiction and the number’s meaning before treating it as a disqualifying difference.

A defensible interim sentence is: “The displayed name matches the fictional list row, but the subject’s registration identifier has not been established. The address difference remains unexplained. Identity assessment is unresolved.” That sentence tells the next reviewer exactly what work is missing.

Do not turn a threshold into a verdict

OFAC does not recommend one universal match threshold. Lowering the minimum score changes the candidate set; it does not make a returned candidate guilty, designated or identical to your subject. Raising it can hide spelling variants without resolving the underlying question.

Keep the exact search text, selected filters, minimum score, retrieval time, list-entry link or identifier, and reviewed evidence together. Record the result separately from your interpretation. A no-result name search is not a blanket legal clearance: the applicable sanctions rules and the proposed activity require their own assessment.

For a real transaction or consequential decision, pass the documented uncertainty to the responsible compliance professional. This article explains how to read search evidence; it does not determine whether an activity is permitted.

If you need to separate ordinary namesakes first, use the name-disambiguation guide. Then put the list record, supporting evidence and unresolved fields into the traceable report template so a reviewer can reproduce your reasoning.