MONZO BANK LIMITED

Registered name: MONZO BANK LIMITED. Registration number: 09446231. Jurisdiction: GB. Status: active. Type: ltd. Incorporated: 2015-02-18. Registered address: Broadwalk House, 5 Appold Street, London, EC2A 2AG, England. Source: UK Companies House.

CONFIRMED (authoritative registry): MCCULLAGH, Paul — secretary; BURBIDGE, Eileen — director; DIAS, Valerie Michelle — director; KEELEY, Rupert Graham — director; LAYFIELD, Diana Louise Patricia — director; MCBAIN, Fiona Catherine — director; NEWBERY, Mark — director; PALANIAPPAN, Jambu — director; WICKER-MIURIN, Jane Fields — director.

DECLARED (filed with the registry by the company, NOT independently verified): Monzo Bank Holding Group Limited — Person with Significant Control. Companies House has historically accepted PSC filings without verification, so these entries record what was declared rather than what has been proven.

Note the 25% PSC disclosure threshold: deliberate structuring below it cannot be excluded on the basis of this register.

Sanctions and watchlist screening returned 4 adverse item(s). • [HIGH] (2025-07-09) UK Challenger Bank, Monzo fined £21 million by FCA for AML ... — http://thefinancialcrimenews.com/uk-challenger-bank-monzo-fined-21-million-by-fca-for-aml-weaknesses/ • [HIGH] (undated) The real lesson from the Monzo fine? Industry's broken approach to ... — https://www.int-comp.org/insight/the-real-lesson-from-the-monzo-fine-industry-s-broken-approach-to-money-laundering-risk-assessment/ • [HIGH] (undated) Notice in a nutshell: Bank fined for financial crime failings — https://connections.nortonrosefulbright.com/post/102kv0z/notice-in-a-nutshell-bank-fined-for-financial-crime-failings • [HIGH] (2025-01-10) 2025 fines - FCA — https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/2025-fines

These are search-derived findings. They record that a source made a claim; they do not establish it as fact. Allegation, investigation, charge and conviction have not been independently distinguished and require analyst review.

PEP screening was NOT performed. No politically-exposed-persons screening provider is connected to this platform. This report therefore makes NO assertion about the PEP, RCA or HIO status of this entity or its controllers. Absence of a PEP finding here must not be read as confirmation that no PEP relationship exists (FATF Recommendation 12; FCA SYSC 12.1). Connecting a screening provider is required before this section can carry any weight.

Adverse media screening returned 5 adverse item(s). • [HIGH] (2025-07-09) UK Challenger Bank, Monzo fined £21 million by FCA for AML ... — http://thefinancialcrimenews.com/uk-challenger-bank-monzo-fined-21-million-by-fca-for-aml-weaknesses/ • [HIGH] (undated) The real lesson from the Monzo fine? Industry's broken approach to ... — https://www.int-comp.org/insight/the-real-lesson-from-the-monzo-fine-industry-s-broken-approach-to-money-laundering-risk-assessment/ • [HIGH] (undated) FCA fines Monzo £21 million for failings in anti-money laundering ... — https://www.mishcon.com/news/fca-fines-monzo-21-million-for-failings-in-anti-money-laundering-systems-and-controls • [HIGH] (undated) Notice in a nutshell: Bank fined for financial crime failings — https://connections.nortonrosefulbright.com/post/102kv0z/notice-in-a-nutshell-bank-fined-for-financial-crime-failings • [HIGH] (undated) PSR publishes first APP scams performance report — https://www.psr.org.uk/news-and-updates/latest-news/news/psr-publishes-first-app-scams-performance-report/

These are search-derived findings. They record that a source made a claim; they do not establish it as fact. Allegation, investigation, charge and conviction have not been independently distinguished and require analyst review.

Regulatory and enforcement screening returned 3 adverse item(s). • [HIGH] (2025-07-09) UK Challenger Bank, Monzo fined £21 million by FCA for AML ... — http://thefinancialcrimenews.com/uk-challenger-bank-monzo-fined-21-million-by-fca-for-aml-weaknesses/ • [HIGH] (undated) FCA fines Monzo £21 million for failings in anti-money laundering ... — https://www.mishcon.com/news/fca-fines-monzo-21-million-for-failings-in-anti-money-laundering-systems-and-controls • [HIGH] (undated) Notice in a nutshell: Bank fined for financial crime failings — https://connections.nortonrosefulbright.com/post/102kv0z/notice-in-a-nutshell-bank-fined-for-financial-crime-failings

These are search-derived findings. They record that a source made a claim; they do not establish it as fact. Allegation, investigation, charge and conviction have not been independently distinguished and require analyst review.

Litigation screening returned 1 adverse item(s). • [HIGH] (2025-07-09) UK Challenger Bank, Monzo fined £21 million by FCA for AML ... — http://thefinancialcrimenews.com/uk-challenger-bank-monzo-fined-21-million-by-fca-for-aml-weaknesses/

These are search-derived findings. They record that a source made a claim; they do not establish it as fact. Allegation, investigation, charge and conviction have not been independently distinguished and require analyst review.

Financial screening ran and returned no adverse findings. Sources consulted: Google Programmable Search. This is a meaningful clean result rather than an absence of checking.

Jurisdiction: GB. Jurisdiction risk scored 35/100. This score derives from published reference data (FATF listings, EU high-risk third countries, Transparency International CPI) held in the platform's reference tables. Where a jurisdiction is absent from those tables it is scored conservatively rather than favourably.

No dedicated ESG data source is connected. Environmental, labour, human rights, governance, whistleblower, supply chain and data breach risk have NOT been separately screened. Any ESG-relevant items appearing above arose incidentally from general adverse media searching.

Composite risk score: 44/100 — Medium. Coverage: PARTIAL. Factor scores and the weights actually applied (renormalised across the domains that ran, so they sum to 100%): • SANCTIONS: 5/100 × 34.1% • ADVERSE_MEDIA: 71/100 × 22.7% • REGULATORY: 79/100 × 20.4% • LITIGATION: 66/100 × 11.4% • PEP: 8/100 × 0.0% • JURISDICTION: 35/100 × 6.8% • TRANSPARENCY: 8/100 × 4.5% Domains NOT reflected in this score: PEP. Weights version: v1.0.0.

CDD level: Standard CDD with Enhanced Monitoring. EDD required: NO. Monitoring frequency: QUARTERLY. Outstanding information gaps: PEP. These must be closed before this recommendation can be considered complete. Trigger events for immediate review: any new sanctions designation, a change of beneficial ownership or control, a change of company status, or any regulatory enforcement action.

Every URL behind a finding in this report. “Read in full” means the page itself was retrieved and classified on its whole text rather than on a search snippet; those carry a SHA-256 hash of exactly what was read, so the evidence can be shown to be unaltered later.

Date of assessment: 10 August 2026. Sources consulted and their outcomes: • Companies House (UK) [REGISTRY] → OKDATA • Companies House (UK) [UBO] → OKDATA • Google Programmable Search [ADVERSEMEDIA] → OKDATA • Google Programmable Search [LITIGATION] → OKDATA • Google Programmable Search [SANCTIONS] → OKDATA • Google Programmable Search [REGULATORY] → OKDATA • Google Programmable Search [FINANCIAL] → OKDATA • No PEP screening provider configured [PEP] → SKIPPED

OKDATA = the source ran and returned data. OKEMPTY = the source ran and genuinely found nothing, which is a meaningful clean result. FAILED = the source did not run; no conclusion may be drawn from its silence. SKIPPED = not applicable to this jurisdiction, or no provider is configured.

Coverage status: PARTIAL. Sources that ran and returned data: Companies House (UK), Google Programmable Search. Sources skipped or not applicable: No PEP screening provider configured. Risk domains NOT reflected in the composite score: PEP. Partial assessment. The following screens did not run and are NOT reflected in the score: PEP.

Legal frameworks: FATF Recommendations; UK Money Laundering Regulations 2017; FCA SYSC 6.3; EU 6AMLD.

This report was produced by an AI-assisted due diligence engine from publicly available sources. It does not constitute legal advice. The engaging firm retains responsibility for final compliance determinations.