OpenSanctions API
Structured sanctions, PEP and watchlist entity graph.
- slug
- opensanctions-api
- priority
- 82
- reviewed
- Apr 24, 2026
How this source is shaped
Very valuable but sensitive. It can support compliance and public-interest research, but matching results must be carefully explained because false positives can create reputational harm.
- Source type
- Api
- Access model
- Mixed
- Pricing model
- Free And Commercial Access Depending On Usage
- API available
- Yes
- Requires account
- Yes
- Risk level
- High
- Sensitivity
- Highly Sensitive
- Integration phase
- Phase 2
- Integration priority
- 82
Review dimensions
Each dimension is graded on a 0–10 scale. The overall score is a weighted aggregate.
Weighted aggregate across the eight review dimensions.
Where this source fits
What analysts use it for, and — just as important — where it does not belong.
- screening
- compliance_research
- entity_risk_context
- journalistic_research
- compliance_analysts
- journalists
- due_diligence_teams
- casual_people_search
- automated_adverse_labeling
- consumer_profile_scoring
Editorial take
Our qualitative read on the source — tone, framing and trust posture.
Powerful source, but this is where OSINT must behave like a grown-up product: cautious UX, disclaimers, confidence, manual review.
Integration stance
Build, buy or defer. What shape the product integration would take, and why.
Integrate only with explicit compliance framing, result explanations, match confidence and false-positive warnings.
Ethics and compliance
What to handle carefully, and what must not ship without sign-off.
Never present matches as final accusations. Always require human review and source-level explanation.
May involve regulated compliance workflows. Review licensing, terms and jurisdictional implications before commercial use.
Metadata
Catalog-side technical footer. Values as recorded in the source row.
- source owner
- OpenSanctions
- report module
- compliance_screening
- integration candidate
- true
- requires policy review
- true